In a previous post I discussed the importance of male investment in women’s intrasexual status competition. This investment can range from the validation which comes from being selected for a one one time hookup, all the way to the very public declaration of lifetime investment which marriage signals. This post picks up where the last one left off, so if you haven’t already read the previous post I would encourage you to do so before continuing with this one.

The previous post explained the basic reality of women’s need for male investment in their status competition with other women. However, this still leaves the question of why women make different choices as they age.

It is important to remember that the desire for male investment isn’t the only force at work here. In the previous post I described how the desire for investment both complements and competes with the desire for “the tingle”. Another factor we need to always keep in mind is the realities of the Sexual Marketplace (SMP) and how men’s and women’s Sexual Market Value (SMV) change with age. Rollo Tomassi has created an excellent graphic to help his readers conceptualize this. See Rollo’s Final Exam – Navigating the SMP for more information on the chart below:

As with anything like this, individuals are likely to disagree slightly over the fine tuning of the curves. However, even if you don’t agree on the exact details I think most in this sphere will agree that Rollo has captured the essence of men and women’s changing SMV with age. Note also that it isn’t just Rollo, or even just the manosphere which understands the basic truth behind the graphic. OK Cupid has mined their own data and found the same structure.

One way to look at the chart above is not just in terms of attractiveness, but the relative power this gives the respective sexes as they age. Young women are the rockstars of the dating world. In one sense Rollo’s chart understates the scale of young women’s SMV power, because very few 38 year old men (the male peak in the graphic) will experience the kind of raw attraction power that the average 23 year old woman experiences. It is only when you include the female desire for male investment that the relative heights of the two curves come into balance.

Seeing the SMP through the lens of courtship

In addition to the chart above, the other paradigm all of this needs to be viewed through is the narrative the young women are playing out in their minds, and this is the narrative of courtship. With very few exceptions, women haven’t embraced the idea of a permanently freewheling SMP. Instead, the vast majority of promiscuous women have sought to increasingly enlarge the concept of courtship. They have done this by both expanding the duration of courtship, as well as by expanding the definition of what level of sexual contact is appropriate during courtship. Freewheeling promiscuity isn’t seen by young women as an end unto itself, it is seen as a path to marriage. The sheer absurdity of what they are doing makes this hard to accept, but it is very clearly what they are doing, or more accurately what they intend to do. Note that even in the recent wave making piece about sex on campus by the New York Times the slutty coeds discuss their dionysian embrace of casual sex as part of a path to marriage:

Almost universally, the women said they did not plan to marry until their late 20s or early 30s.

In this context, some women, like A., seized the opportunity to have sex without relationships…

For those who haven’t read the article, it is important to note that A is a young woman who only has drunken sex because she wouldn’t want to be around her f*** buddy sober, and that she makes it a point to always do it in his bed so she won’t have to deal with the wetspot. This young woman still plans to marry:

“‘I’ve always heard this phrase, ‘Oh, marriage is great, or relationships are great — you get to go on this journey of change together,’ ” she said. “That sounds terrible.

“I don’t want to go through those changes with you. I want you to have changed and become enough of your own person so that when you meet me, we can have a stable life and be very happy.”

This is why she would only agree to be interviewed if they didn’t use her name:

Ten years from now, no one will remember — I will not remember — who I have slept with…

You can see the same thing in the famous Kate Bolick piece in the Atlantic a few years ago. Bolick interviewed the young women in Susan Walsh’s “focus group”. After explaining that these young women had a great deal of experience with casual sex, she tells us:

…when I asked if they wanted to get married when they grew up, and if so, at what age, to a one they answered “yes” and “27 or 28.”

She then reinforced this point:

“Take a look at me,” I said. “I’ve never been married, and I have no idea if I ever will be. There’s a good chance that this will be your reality, too. Does that freak you out?”

Again they nodded.

“I don’t think I can bear doing this for that long!” whispered one, with undisguised alarm.

This is of course the whole mission of Susan Walsh’s Hooking Up Smart; Susan hopes to teach young women to leverage their hookups as a path to “relationships” and ultimately marriage.

Putting the courtship narrative into the context of Rollo’s chart.

When women are young and have the power position in the SMP, promiscuity is intoxicating to them. Since they have the power, the short term nature of most of their relationships isn’t seen as them being rejected by men, but as them rejecting men. Young women today don’t feel the need that previous generations did to secure commitment in their late teens and early 20s because:

Only small numbers of other women their age are going after the more public and durable forms of male investment.

Their hopping from man to man is seen as occurring on their own terms.

However, as women progress into their late twenties all of this starts to change. Their SMP power relative to men starts to decline and at the same time their peers start to marry in much greater numbers. In other words, their need to secure male investment occurs fairly suddenly, and at the very time their SMP power is starting to dive. This is surprising to many young women because of our cultural denial of the SMP realities Rollo describes.

Although plenty of women dabble in sexual-market relationships and then settle down successfully with life partners, he said, many women are “not witnessing marriage happening on the timetables they prefer and expected.”

This is because, as economist Timothy Reickert has found, power shifts away from women as they move toward their 30s

This is where as we continuously see in the media the panic starts to set in. Yet despite the fact that marriage trends are moving in the wrong direction, the vast majority of women in the US still do manage to marry. Only 20% of current 35-39 year old women in the US (all races) have never married. If you understand the reality of hypergamy and women’s tendency to focus only on the top tier of men, you can see how powerful the desire to secure male investment is for women.

But why don’t women remain married?

There are several factors which come into play when asking why women value the status signal of marriage so much and yet women are also the ones driving our epidemic of divorce. Part of the issue is the average man has been fooled into acting in ways his wife is nearly guaranteed to find frustrating and unattractive. Another critical factor is the constant barrage of articles, books, and movies telling women that divorce will make them happy. These themes are so common in our culture that very few people even notice them. Whether it is the local paper, Fireproof, Eat Pray Love, How Stella Got Her Groove Back, or Single In The Suburbs, the message to women is the same:

Divorce is the beginning of something wonderful…

There is also of course the issue of cash and prizes. Our current structure of family law is designed to maximize the cash and noncash incentives to wives to divorce. Add to this the choice by the churches to look the other way regarding divorce and even lionize single mothers, and the question should become not why do so many wives choose divorce, but why are so many able to resist this temptation? Certainly some women have the integrity to keep their marriage vows even in an era where neither the church nor the state would discourage them from divorce, but this can’t fully explain why so many women resist the siren call of divorce empowerment.

To understand the answer to this question we need to remember that marriage (or something like it) is critical for women’s intrasexual status competition, at least past a certain age. Divorce isn’t desired by women as the end of the married phase of their life, but as just another extension of the courtship phase on the path to their real marriage. It isn’t a desire to simply jettison a husband, it is a desire to trade up to a new husband.

As with young women seeing their promiscuity as a path to marriage, don’t allow the absurdity of the divorce and trade up plan to confuse you. Yes the plan is nearly guaranteed to end in failure, especially if the woman is past her twenties and/or already has children. The woman would have married when her SMV was higher (often much higher), and when her present husband’s SMV was lower. To this disadvantage we must add the baggage of divorce and especially children. But this is still what nearly all divorcing women have in mind. This is why the divorce empowerment tales all end with the divorcée either accepting or at least fielding offers of lifetime commitment from better men than the one she divorced.

Yes the plan is absurd, but don’t forget that women are constantly being told it will work out if only they have faith and divorce. Messages to the contrary are angrily shouted down in a feminist attempt to rework reality by simply denying it. Even here, most women know better, even if they let their greed get the best of them. But the allure of winning on such a grand scale for many women overcomes their better judgment. With time running out, they take on incredible risk in hopes of winning big and skyrocketing in status. This may not translate to other regions, but here in Texas we have a term for this kind of decision.

It isn’t that it never works, it is that the choice being made is statistically a very bad one. At times however this choice can pay off spectacularly. Consider the case of Bathsheba in the Bible. She was married to a man of fairly middling status. Yet through the power of advertising, some extreme risk taking, and a good deal of luck she was able to not only trade up to wife of the King of Israel, but also have her own son become next in line for the throne. This is how gambling works though. The lure of the easy and spectacular payoff blinds us to the risks involved, and for women who call a divorce lawyer and say the equivalent of our Texas phrase above the odds are very much against them.

As you can see from Rollo’s chart at the top of the page, the odds are not only against them, but getting worse by the year. Remarriage stats don’t capture the realities of trading up vs down, but they give us a barometer of what is going on. Even with the family courts financially crippling men, men still have a much higher rate of remarriage than women, and this advantage increases dramatically with age.

As if it couldn’t get worse, remarriage rates are also declining rapidly. Again, these statistics don’t tell us about the quality of mate divorcées are able to secure when remarrying, but the realities of the SMV curves tell us that on average these pairings represent a step down, very often a huge step down, for the divorcée. Added to her pain is the high likelyhood that the husband she discarded will wind up with a younger/prettier woman than she is. The stakes are huge, and while the payoff is spectacular when it works as intended, so is the failure which is much more common.

DA Wolf describes the reality of post divorce dating in her Huffington Post piece Post-Divorce Dating: Time or Timing? She explains that immediately after divorce she was focused on coping with the destruction and havoc her divorce had created and recovering mentally. By the time she was ready to start dating again she was reaching middle age.

Now, now. Let’s be realistic. When it comes to marketing the feminine vehicle, the 40-something or 50-something model with kids in tow is a tough sell. Even if you’re well-built and properly maintained — it’s a niche market. Supply outstrips demand, and competition is tough. You’re up against the younger and rebuilt versions, not to mention those without kids, debts, and other baggage.

Even for younger women the attempt to reenter courtship is generally a huge shock. Unless they married extremely young and divorced only a few years later, their SMP power is far lower than it was when they were looking for husband #1. And this is before factoring in trying to find a man who wants to commit to a single mother, a woman with a track record of not keeping her own commitments.

The other immediate problem divorcing women run into is their status among other women, the very status they sought to increase, takes a nosedive. While in their late teens and early twenties not having secured public and long term (ideally lifetime) investment from a man was overlooked, now it is seen as a failure. Divorcées are initially given a bit of status leeway, because initially at least the narrative that they are in the process of trading up to a better husband seems at least somewhat plausible to other women. They’ve watched Eat Pray Love and Fireproof too, so they don’t immediately assume this will be the 99% failure and not the 1% spectacular success. But fairly quickly this tends to change. Women whose divorces are final and aren’t on a verifiable track to remarriage are seen as desperate, and because of this are seen as a risk to other womens’ marriages. Delaine Moore describes experiencing this in her own piece in the Huffington Post:

And because I’m not just a woman, but a Divorced Mom, the harsh judgments potentially cast my way scare me to death…

…the stereotype “divorcée.” That’s right; the insidious “D” word. Better lock up your husbands, ladies. No — decent divorced mothers should only want a serious relationship. And they better get on that quick, because with each year that passes, they’re apt to grow more bitter and undesirable and desperate. They are women with cargo. Women who failed. Women who didn’t deserve any better. Spit.

Note the huge status drop this involves. She didn’t reenter the intoxicating and empowering dating phase she had experienced in her twenties, and other women now see her inability to secure public investment from a man entirely differently. Instead of the promised “empowerment” of divorce, since she hadn’t secured a replacement husband she was seen as desperate, as a failure. Another divorcée commented on the same piece describing her own experience:

I got great support from my married friends during and immediately after my divorce. Six months after it was finalized, I felt ready to start dating again. I mentioned this at a girls’ night out and the temperature dropped 20 degrees. Suddenly, it was though I’d become a threat. Mixed social invitations dried up and I noticed that friends who had been loaning out their husbands to give me a hand with simple home or car repairs began dropping by while he was working at my place. I can only suppose they were chaperoning their men. I hadn’t changed my behavior, only my marital status…

…I kept chit chat with husbands to a minimum while at parties or after church. But it never improved. Today, my friends are largely other single moms.

On a comment to a separate Huffington Post article another divorcée describes how even her doctors viewed her in this light:

I had a medical problem a few years after I was divorced, and several doctors tried to write it off to “post-divorce depression.” Instead of pursuing a medical cause for the symptoms, they just handed me anti-depressants; when those didn’t work, they handed me a different type of anti-depressants because “not every person has the same reaction to this variety”, and made it clear that I was going to try all 300 brands of anti-depressant before they would look for another reason for the problems.

Without even asking if I was in a new relationship, one of them told me that I just had to deal with it that I was middle-aged and chubby, no one was ever going to want to date me, pull myself together and stop being depressed over being alone.

Enter the hamster.

Once the reality of their incredibly foolish decision becomes obvious, divorcées then set about creating a plausible story explaining that they didn’t really fail. These break down into three basic rationalizations:

They have a new man and he is even better than the ex husband. Never mind the fact that he hasn’t worked in years, is painfully beta, and/or has serious psychological problems or addictions.

They have a new high status man, or perhaps even a whole stable of such men competing for their approval, but unfortunately these men are too busy to accompany her to social engagements.

Now that she’s older she no longer feels the need to have lifetime investment from a man.

Women on the verge of their own “hold my beer and watch this” moment are especially tempted to accept rationalizations 1&2 at face value, while keeping rationalization #3 as a disaster recovery plan. Other married women however generally see right through these rationalizations.

It should be obvious how to test rationalizations 1&2 in your own social circle. For rationalization #1, compare the whole man to the woman’s ex husband. Chances are there is a reason this man was not only single and interested in marriage, but why he settled for a divorcée instead of a younger never married woman. For rationalization #2, insist on meeting these mystery men, and watch to see if he actually appears or the story somehow always seems to change. If he does appear, test him like you would for rationalization #1.

Rationalization #3 is the backstop rationalization, when all else has failed. At an individual level of course we can’t prove that it isn’t true. There must be some women who coincidentally lose the desire to have a man at the same time their options have dried up. However, statistically we know this isn’t the case. While divorced women don’t have good options regarding remarriage, we know that women who are married lose their interest in divorce as they get older. The pattern is quite striking. We also know from the AARP study on late life divorce that divorcees who don’t remarry tend to end up incredibly alone. Divorced men are not only more likely to date and remarry than divorced women, they are also far more likely to have sex or any kind of sexual contact without remarriage. Again if you consider Rollo’s SMP chart, the reasons for this should be obvious. The AARP study also found that remarriage was a strong factor in divorced women’s (and men’s) sense of well being. 72% of the divorcées who had remarried responded that they were at the top of the “ladder of life”, while only 51% of those women who hadn’t remarried answered the same.

The reality is the vast majority of women would very much want to be married to a worthy man later in life if they could, but through a combination of media cheerleading and profound miscalculation very large numbers of women are finding themselves on the wrong side of the divorce and remarriage calculation. That the decisions of many women turn out after the fact to be catastrophic doesn’t change the fact that they intended for things to turn out very differently. The evidence for this is all around us, so long as we are willing to see it. More importantly, once you understand this it becomes much easier to help aspiring frivorcees in your social circle avoid making the same mistake.

SMP graphic used by permission from Rollo Tomassi. Dominos image licensed as creative commons by aussiegall.

In order to conquer the West, the bankers focused on the women–the weaker sex–filling their heads with lies and telling them that the way to true salvation was to follow and act on their baser instincts–their butt and gina tingzlzlzoz–instead of their Spirit, God, Man, and Family, as defined by the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.

The bankers also conquered the entire PUA community, as instead of ruling their women via Spirit, God, Man, and Family, as defined by the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN, the PUA community is also ruled by butt and gina tingzlzlzozo which defines every word spoken and action taken–every neg and subsequent butcockciizbzgz which are abominations in the eyes of Jesus Christ, Moses, et al.

It is good to see Dalrock by and by favoring Jesus and Moses and their Moral Teachings over womenz butt and gina tinzgzlzlzoozoz as the True Head of the Church.

And by God, when Men again Lead by the Higher Ideals instead of the bottom line and bottom tinzgzlzlzozo, other Good Men will Follow.

At the risk of duplication, I find this observation worth repeating – as the SMV of white women decline, there are other choices available for the older adult male:

At this juncture, sexy Miss ‘non-ghetto’ African-American … Miss Chaing of Asia … Mei-Mei from Southeast Asia … Fujiko from Japan … Miss Desi India … an ebony-skinned, English-speaking Kenyan, Ugandan or Angolan beauty … the exotic & dark lady of the Caribbean Islands … Miss Latina … and others, having performed their ‘vetting,’ will be waiting, often in droves, to compete for and snap up this man-treasure. At which time, the jeans come off, the skirts go on and hemlines rise like the S & P 500 in a bubble economy.

Since they have the power, the short term nature of most of their relationships isn’t seen as them being rejected by men, but as them rejecting men

This stood out in the early part of the post. (the post is excellent, comprehensive, insightful, just plain good readin’)

The reason women are thinking they are rejecting the men is very simple solipsism. They are evaluating the entire dynamic as if it were two women, not a man and a woman. They are rejecting commitment to them men, and they are acting as if the men are after emotional relational commitment. In fact obviously the men are in it for exactly what they are getting….sex. The stupidity this reflects carries into the marriage dynamic and is the basis for a tremendous amount of marital angst.

Once when I told my wife, “listen to this and react”….then I said “men marry for sex”, she was flabbergasted. It almost ruined an evening out. It took a long time for her to see that that is not a threatening statement. The women you write about who think they are rejecting the men clearly do not understand that men marry for sex, if they are Christian men, all the more for sanctioned sex.

Imagine after the hook up and they part, she is thinking (and thinking and thinking and telling anyone who will listen) “that poor guy, it was just sex but he probably wants to see me again”…..the guy is thinking “wouldn’t be a bad thing to hook up with her some other time, wonder what my buds are doin’ tomorrow”

Considering the hell that women have unleashed with the aid and power of the satanic church and family courts it is hard not to relish the misery that many of these whores are bathing in. I know this made me smile when I think about the prospects facing my ex – obese? Check. – past 35? Check. – children? Check, Check, Check. Already collecting cats? Check.

This essay and its predecessor, ‘Intra-sexual Competition’ are clearly destined to be part of the Book of Dalrock, as and when it is published. I have learnt a lot, for, being part of that modern liberal generation I had easily imbibed that ‘fish-bicycle’ chant, and swallowed whole as gospel truth the justifications especially number 3, and variations thereon that Dalrock outlines above. So many women seem to have a sign above their head saying just that.

My only problem is that the two essays do not quite fit my own experiences: when I was younger – although I had plenty of girlfriends – women all made it clear that they were too good for me. No matter that their day job might be in tele-sales or slaving over a hot-typewriter, it was clear that someone bigger than me or more handsome or the owner of an estate in the country and with a paddock with horses for them to ride was well within their grasp, even though they were already (usually) already with the baggage of at least one failed live-in LTR, which in hindsghtb should have had me grabbing my hat and running for the hills. The fact that in the event the tele-sales girl married a thick-brickie is hardly the point. As I grew older, the women who interested me still played impossibly hard to get – and with accusations of abuse, or that I only wanted one thing – that is when I was not being mentally cuckolded for commitment. Those who were keener on me and might have considered matrimony, proved utterly beyond the pale so far as marriage was concerned even as they thought that a trip up the aisle was theirs merely ‘for the asking’ – they knew they were truly fabulous and had the ex-lovers to prove it. There is a view in the Androsphere that women are passed it at any age after twenty-nine: I don’t observe this to be true. Take my forty-six year old single might-have-been who is (so far as I can tell – and I have previously been pretty correct in decoding her on-line cryptic messages, notable for their abstract lack of concrete detail – that is the first sign) accepting the offer this weekend of empowering casual-sex with any number of strangers in what appears to be a swinger’s orgy. No one ever invited me to an orgy so who am I to suggest that she is undesirable – and what better way can there be for her to achieve pregnancy – which seems to be her IVF assisted aim – than to give every one (but not me of course) a chance. I obviously have terrible taste in women, or perhaps it is just different in Texas.

My brothers wife decided to move on at age 50. My brother was blind sided and luckily started seeing a shrink, which helped him a lot. One of the interesting things the shrink stated was that after 2 – 3 years, about 80% of the women realized their mistake and wanted to re-unite with the original husbands.

Surprising how when they eventually climb over the fence, they find that the grass is actually dead. It is just painted bright green!

Yessir, when I am in Ipswich drinking where I sleep, “The Mistle Thorn” (gosh, I love the names) I am aware that its not the same as what was my favorite haunt in Dallas when I lived there….”The Long Branch Country Club”. I guess the clientele are, hmmmm, equally different?

Another aspect of the extended courtship and promiscuity is that these women also monopolize marriageable men during their most marriageable years which leaves the good non promiscuous girls out of the loop.

All the spinsters I know we’re chaste good girls who couldn’t compete for male attention without putting out. Basically the sluts monopolized male attention and when they reached the end of their best marriageable years their equavalent male cohort were simply monopolized by a younger promiscuous cohort.

To these women all they could see was men chasing poon but they cant fathom that it is the free availability of poon which causes the chasing.

Another aspect of the extended courtship and promiscuity is that these women also monopolize marriageable men during their most marriageable years which leaves the good non promiscuous girls out of the loop.

All the spinsters I know we’re chaste good girls who couldn’t compete for male attention without putting out. Basically the sluts monopolized male attention and when they reached the end of their best marriageable years their equavalent male cohort were simply monopolized by a younger promiscuous cohort.

Oh really? I’ve seen this claim coming from some church girls.

The reality I suspect, is that they were trying to compete with the slutty girls for the same small number of alphas.

They got approached for sex from the top tier of men, and this caused them to mistakenly overvalue themselves thinking that they could eventually get commitment.

They become alpha widows without actually having sex with the alphas. In an earlier era this wouldn’t have happened as they would never have been approached for sex by these men in the first place and would have had to manage their dating lives bases on their Marriage Market Value which is universally lower for women than her Sexual Market Value.

The other immediate problem divorcing women run into is their status among other women, the very status they sought to increase, takes a nosedive.

Is it morally wrong for we women who have honored our marriage vows even through times of difficulty to be socially rejecting of divorcees?

No, it is not wrong at all, because you have every right to protect what is yours. You *already know* that those women will STEAL YOUR HUSBAND IN A HEARTBEAT IF THEY CAN. So trust your instincts and stop feeling guilty.

I noticed that friends who had been loaning out their husbands to give me a hand with simple home or car repairs began dropping by while he was working at my place.

Well, isn’t that interesting. What I have noticed is that divorced women and single mothers, most especially at church, sometimes think they have the right to other women’s husbands’ labor.
Seriously, is it my Christian duty to send my husband over to do household repairs for man-hunting divorcees?

No, it is not. Again, stop feeling guilty that those women don’t have men. And stop being naive about their motives. Because every guy knows that you are NEVER more attractive to women than when you are TAKEN. Keep your husband HOME and BANG HIM SENSELESS.

“Well, isn’t that interesting. What I have noticed is that divorced women and single mothers, most especially at church, sometimes think they have the right to other women’s husbands’ labor.”

I still don’t understand this. My ex tried to get me to do work for her friends, then got really angry with me when I said NO. The only people that have a “right” (said with MASSIVE quotes) to my labour are the people that I decide to provide it to. That does not include anybody that I don’t decide it does.

These women have a right to nothing. They can fix their own stuff. If not, pay somebody to do it. They have no business expecting or demanding anything. I don’t doubt that life’s tough for them; but I have little to no sympathy for people that create their own problems.

Is it morally wrong for we women who have honored our marriage vows even through times of difficulty to be socially rejecting of divorcees?

The proper response to the unrepentant embracing of sin is churchwide shunning. “Do not even eat with them,” was Paul’s command in 1st Corinthians (same book with everyone’s favorite Love Chapter for reading at weddings).

Of course, the goal, in Christian love, is to use the intense shame of social rejection to bring about repentance (and therefore forgiveness and reconciliation). And it might happen, too, quite a bit more if churches literally started blacklisting anyone who filed for divorce. Might even prevent a few divorces if women were certain that it would happen to them.

One of my old college friends lost his high SMV wife to her tingles. I left the church that I went to during my college years because they held the graduation ceremonies for the local Christian College, and the year after she left hubby for a less boring man, she showed up at the graduation ceremony and started hobnobbing with freaking everyone.

There were maybe two people in the whole building who didn’t know what she had done. But she was young and hot, and God Forbid Minnesotans offend anyone, so everyone was all smiles and how-do-you-do.

I was sick to my stomach. Up until that moment, I genuinely believed that most churches were actually trying to follow the Bible, rather than trying to use the Bible to rubberstamp whatever they were planning to do anyway.

When she got to me, I scowled, spun on my heel, and stormed out of the church. I’ve never darkened the door of that church since, even though my brother and my best friend go there. It was four or five years before I darkened the door of any other church.

Unless the women had divorced their husbands on Biblically sanctioned grounds, I think not. Rebuking such women for their sins seems highly appropriate to me, and social rejection is one such method.

In that case, we have a problem which is particularly pronounced in the church.

Pre-feminism, women shamed each other into acting right and one of our main weapons was social rejection. But in modern times, this is seen as mean, hurtful, and judgmental. The problem is this: it was hurtful for individual women but it saved other women from such a sad fate because whenever they got that discontented feeling about their husbands, they needed only to look at the social isolation and the unrepaired houses of the few divorcees they knew, and they would say to themselves, There but for the grace of my husband go I. So it was cruel on the individual level, but ostracizing frivorcees spared more women (and their husbands and children) from the cruel misery of divorce.

You know, the position of married women has been so degraded by the invention of the baby mama that we don’t realize that we still wield power in the herd with our judgment. I wouldn’t have thought so, but in reading the quote that Dalrock provided, I see that divorcees do feel the sting when married women reject them.

@ Emrys Myrddin
I cross posted with you and said nearly the same thing. We are in agreement.

Maybe we should shame people who frivorce their spouses for cash and prizes, but we don’t. And the cardinal rule about Christianity is….

Forgive those who Trespass against us.

To forgive is divine. To shame is not. We are actually commanded to forgive the divorcees, and not to shun them. Shunning is the worst possible form of physical pain someone could inflict upon someone else.

What a quandry? What a conundrum? I agree, I don’t want divorcees to think it is okay to do what they did and I would much prefer to shun them but as a Christian I am commanded not to do so. I must forgive them. I don’t have a choice in the matter.

August has been a great month for Dalrock. Thank you for all the great articles.

Seconded. When Dalrock really gets going, the good stuff comes out.

…it was cruel on the individual level, but ostracizing frivorcees spared more women (and their husbands and children) from the cruel misery of divorce.

Not even so cruel. Helping frivorcees paper over their miserable state works strongly to prevent them from curing the underlying disease. If any can be saved, they won’t be saved by a comforting pat on the back and an offer of lawn-mowing. They have to see the cliff to back off from it.

Even those who will not be rescued are better served by the warning than by false comfort.

I cross posted with you and said nearly the same thing. We are in agreement.
You were more succinct, but I had a heart-rending story. We’ll call it a tie.

“Your Christian duty to a woman without a husband would depend on whether she’s been added to the roster of widows in your church.”

Due to their natural tendency to remarry, the biblically governed Church is even cynical toward widows. They have practically no blame in the loss of a husband, but are hesitantly supported. How much more cynical should we be toward voluntarily divorced women? They should bear the loss and think long and hard on how they arrived at that condition. They surely don’t warrant other women’s husbands on load. Good night.

@Dalrock: “Hold my beer and watch this” is now the second meme I will henceforth apply to my frivorcee ex-wife’s second marriage, now in its 9th month. (The first was Gene Wilder’s Willy Wonka asking: “So . . . you married a stranger and moved to rural Alabama with him. . . . How’d that work out for you?”). Thank you for that; love it (though she isn’t a drinker).

I’m curious whether there would be a consensus of your readers as to the likely duration of this second marriage: SHE is 52, 13 months out of a 29-year marriage, attractive (though not slim), superficially pleasant and overtly spiritual but subtly bat shit crazy underneath (probably Narcissistic Personality Disorder), 4 kids (2 adults, 1 teen son who lives with me, 1 teen daughter with special needs who lives with her — and who is perpetually irritated with step-dad for the most innocuous things), overly entwined with her 75-year old King James Only fundamentalist father (who now lives in a house that shares a driveway with second hubby’s); HE is 54, two years out of his second divorce, married for about 8 years to the first wife (2 kids), had an affair with his second wife (also married at the time) before divorcing the first wife, married the second wife 8 months after her divorce, married to her for 17 years (2 kids from her first marriage, 1 kid with her), former lay pastor in rural Alabama, history of angry explosions at second wife (backing her into a corner, holding her arms, and screaming at her) and one assault while the divorce was pending (in anger, flipping her off the cot she was sleeping on, onto other furniture, causing bruising). My relatively uninformed guess is about 2 years.

@SSM: “In that case, we have a problem which is particularly pronounced in the church.

Pre-feminism, women shamed each other into acting right and one of our main weapons was social rejection. But in modern times, this is seen as mean, hurtful, and judgmental. The problem is this: it was hurtful for individual women but it saved other women from such a sad fate because whenever they got that discontented feeling about their husbands, they needed only to look at the social isolation and the unrepaired houses of the few divorcees they knew, and they would say to themselves, There but for the grace of my husband go I. So it was cruel on the individual level, but ostracizing frivorcees spared more women (and their husbands and children) from the cruel misery of divorce.”

I can testify to the problem in the church. My ex’s divorce was unbiblical, according to a previous pastor (the first time she filed) and the Christian marriage counselor we were seeing just before she filed the second time. To my disappointment, she received a surprising amount of rah-rah’s from a surprising number of supposedly conservative Christian women, including (or especially) for her quick remarriage. She received no shunning or shaming from anyone, including the few women who did disapprove. I actually solicited the intervention of several mature Christian women who had at one time or another been sort of mentors to my wife. All refused, saying it would make no difference because she had obviously made up her mind. Absolutely shameful. We know the state rewards frivorce. Now the church also rewards it or at least fails to disapprove of it.

SSM with the rim shot. You’re bad… So it’s that king of crowd, tonight, is it?

I just flew in from Abilene, and boy, are my arms tired. A duck walks into a bar… Oh, nevermind.

How many Feminists does it take to change a light bulb? Four. One to change the bulb, one to complain that the bulb is violating the socket, one to secretly wish she were the socket, and one to secretly wish she were the bulb.

To forgive is divine. To shame is not. We are actually commanded to forgive the divorcees, and not to shun them. Shunning is the worst possible form of physical pain someone could inflict upon someone else.

Notice how IBB isn’t even bothering to try and back this bold assertion up. Why? Because what he is preaching is false doctrine. For example, 1 Timothy 5:20:

As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest also may stand in fear.

To shun a divorcee is to rebuke her. Here is what Jesus said on the matter:

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
(Matthew 18 15-17)

We are called to forgive, yes, but we are also called to rebuke. Not to be cruel, but to set our brother or sister back on the right path.

I called this over a decade ago. I painfully observed this all through college. I confronted several of the girls at my dorm about this. I demanded an answer and unequivocally it was in sync with this article from 2013. They PLAN this out. It’s a CONSCIOUS intentional lifestyle plan. Dalrock says 20% of the women never get married. That means 80% of them do. That means they ARE pulling this off. That pisses me off. Look he long its been since my “college experience” and it’s STILL going on. I read else where 40% are unable to get married. Dalrock says 20%. Which is it? As long as men are oblivious they will continue to marry these banged out used up dish rags and these women will have no reason to change and our society will continue to decay.

“If the skill premium is in an intermediate range, men may find delaying marriage to be a dominant strategy while women may find neither delaying nor marrying early to be dominant. The optimal strategy for any woman then depends on the choices made by young women in adjacent cohorts. For instance, if all young women from the next cohort participate early in the marriage market, then marrying early is optimal for women from the current cohort. On the other hand, if current period women know that next-period women will delay participation, then it is optimal for them to delay as well. Strategic complementarity between marriage-timing decisions of adjacent cohorts of women makes women’s payoff from delaying marriage endogenous to other women’s strategies. If women look to the past to form their expectations about their marriage and career prospects (Goldin, 1997, 2004a, 2004b, 2006, 2008), then these intra-, and inter-cohort dynamics may be a key factor determining women’s marriage-timing. If women were to coordinate their marriage timing towards delaying, imbalances at work and at home may vanish.”

“”This essay and its predecessor, ‘Intra-sexual Competition’ are clearly destined to be part of the Book of Dalrock, as and when it is published””

Agreed!…….It is essays like this that make us hardcore Dalrockians! This essay describes my sister’s situation to a “T”.She divorced a really great guy for no reason.She never gets asked out even though she is very attractive.It is because of the baggage…divorced 2 kids.etc. guys are not into that.”Never get involved with a woman with kids unless the father is dead”….I have tried to explain this to her.I fixed my ex brother in law up with a woman 12 years younger(no baggage) than my sister……SHE FREAKED!…………Now,she thinks she might want him back…..What a fem-tard! As I told her “he does not want you back….you f*****g idiot”

“”That means 80% of them do. That means they ARE pulling this off. That pisses me off””

Remember that 50% of them will end in divorce.Trust me….You will get the last laugh! I found this out myself.You are a few years younger than me.I am 48.When you are 48 you will see all those women you know from college divorced with loads of baggage and they will be begging you to take them out …Watch! The best part is you get to deny them and let them see you with some bombshell that is 20 years younger than yourself. You have yet to experience the contempt and seething hatred that you will experience from women your age when they see you with a “much younger” woman…….and let me tell you….IT IS GREAT!

Only angry people use “mainstream media” or its abbreviation, M.S.M. Real people in the traditional movement would refer to that bunch as “blue-pillers” or something less serious. WE are right, after all.

Oh all those hook ups “just happened”. It was really HIS idea. I was drunk, or traveling, or in a sad state, or needed revenge against my boyfriend, or any of the other 100,000 excuses to make her not look like a slut.

Divorce is no picnic. And even as a divorced person, myself, I will sometimes judge other people who did it. I will think: was your spouse an addict, an adulterer, did they beat you, did they ruin your relationships with others, threaten your life or career, lead you into sin? Oh, no? Well, then why did you get divorced? Cause if you’re a case of frivorce, you’re making a mockery of people who divorce for valid reasons.

The main misconception with divorced women by married women is that divorced women want someone else’s man. In some cases, yes, preselection does its work, but, by and large, women don’t want to share men. They want their own man. So, shunning is one way to drive a woman to steal something that is not hers. She may become so sad and desperate she feels she has a right to something she doesn’t, and a certain kind of man will feel sympathy for her situation and want to help and protect her. Not to mention divorced women tend to become more grateful for the little things men do than the average married woman. This makes it easy for a man to fall in love with a woman who actually appreciates him again. Women who have been cheated on are naturally the ones most nervous to have a divorced woman around.

Sometimes married women will be the ones most anxious to set you up with another man right away. Though this would probably contribute to the myth that divorce is a good option, this is likely the route better for society in that each woman has a man of her own. I am practically immune to the married woman glare when her husband does or says anything remotely kind in the most innocuous manner. I let it bounce off. Its her problem, not mine. The same thing happened when I was married. Women are threatened and mean to women who are both attractive and nice. No shocker there. Its a rare women who is confident enough in herself to be kind to all without worrying her husband will stray.

What you forgot to mention, Dalrock, is that this fantasy of trading up by divorcing is a consequence of premarital sex.

After women having had great sex and “relationships” with alphas, they start getting desperate and they end up marrying a beta. During this marriage, they end up dissatisfied with the beta and remembering the hot alphas they used to date. They come to believe that they made a big mistake by marrying the beta, that, if only had they waited a little more, they would have landed an alpha. They divorce with the aim of reentering the dating market and getting that alpha. They don’t know that their MMV has dropped dramatically while they were married.

@Empath: Look, I don’t expect you to relate or comprehend. But people considering divorce should know as Dalrock is pointing out in both of these related posts, you are trading one set of bad circumstances for another. If you can change the original set of circumstances, that is obviously the route to take. If you can’t, you’re most likely up a creek either way. Happy endings are the exception, not the rule. They are easier if the bar in the original marriage was set rather low. But divorced or not, you will never be entirely separated from your former spouse. You will continue to have moral and sometimes financial obligations to them until death do you part. If you take marriage seriously, that person is not tossed out like the trash. So, you do the best you can by them under the circumstances. You let go with love. You hate the sin, not the sinner.

@Ellie: I suppose that is sometimes the case, but sometimes women are just pleasant because they were raised to be caring and compassionate and are secure in themselves and not manipulative, insecure, and bitchy. What one sees in the world is a reflection of oneself, not necessarily what exists. This can mean that a person with good values assigns good values to others without really assessing that person and is surprised when they don’t exhibit the values they assigned to them. Other times, a person with bad values assigns bad values to others. In other words, we make projections without evidence.

Oh all those hook ups “just happened”. It was really HIS idea. I was drunk, or traveling, or in a sad state, or needed revenge against my boyfriend, or any of the other 100,000 excuses to make her not look like a slut.

Susan Walsh has a better “excuse”: a pity f*ck. The guy (who was a boyfriend of an acquaintance of hers) implored her to have sex with him and she has pity for the guy. So she did it as an act of kindness for this human being. She didn’t enjoy it a bit and she didn’t want to have it (as told in Hooking Up Smart).

In honor to her altruism and her devotion to alleviate suffering (take that, Florence Nightingale!), I propose her to the Nobel Peace Prize. Her example will be followed in a charity I plan to create “Sl*ts without Borders”. Every third-world guy would have a chance to hook up with a member of the organization to alleviate their suffering.

A divorce is called violence by God. I never trust nice divorcees- ever. The divorce itself is proof that they are violent people, and even more so if it was frivolous. If they treated their closest relative whom they promised to love for life violently, why should their niceness reveal a sweet interior to strangers/acquaintances?

>> Kate: You hate the sin, not the sinner.
Which is why Christ made clear that shunning and shame are to be used to bring a brother or sister to repentance; the goal is not permanently leaving them outside the circle, but to force them to recognize the sin, repent, and return. You ask for the sinner to return to the fold without repentance (under your rationalization) and put their immortal self at risk.

>> Kate: @Ellie: I suppose that is sometimes the case, but sometimes women are just pleasant because they were raised to be caring and compassionate and are secure in themselves and not manipulative, insecure, and bitchy. What one sees in the world is a reflection of oneself, not necessarily what exists. This can mean that a person with good values assigns good values to others without really assessing that person and is surprised when they don’t exhibit the values they assigned to them. Other times, a person with bad values assigns bad values to others. In other words, we make projections without evidence.

“To forgive is divine. To shame is not. We are actually commanded to forgive the divorcees, and not to shun them. Shunning is the worst possible form of physical pain someone could inflict upon someone else.”

Did you not say in an earlier comment on a different post that you do not believe in shunning or excommunication?

If, “yes”, that would explain why you are ignoring I Corinthians 5, and over-emphasizing forgiveness.

Mr.A is Mr.A
When women say “she is being nice” to cover some evil motive they are projecting and it also justifies the selfish bitch behavior she may be using in her own self interest. It is the usual female illogic that makes it easy to make any claim of intent as the situation arrives.

Brothers and sisters,
You have forgotten the exhortation addressed to you as children:
“My son, do not disdain the discipline of the Lord
or lose heart when reproved by him;
for whom the Lord loves, he disciplines;
he scourges every son he acknowledges.”
Endure your trials as “discipline”;
God treats you as sons.
For what “son” is there whom his father does not discipline?
At the time,
all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain,
yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness
to those who are trained by it.

>> IBB: Shunning is the worst possible form of physical pain someone could inflict upon someone else.

Flatly and absurdly false. Shunning != physical pain. There are types of physical pain due to disease and injury that cannot be controled with pain-killers and drugs that almost completely dull the senses; pain that will be with their owners for the remainder of their mortal days no matter their emotional state. Shunning and shame don’t live in that category or even come close.

>>What a quandry? What a conundrum? I agree, I don’t want divorcees to think it is okay to do what they did and I would much prefer to shun them but as a Christian I am commanded not to do so. I must forgive them. I don’t have a choice in the matter.

There is no quadary or conundrum other than the one you have built for yourself.

“9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked person from among you.'”

Kate write (bold mine)I will think: was your spouse an addict, an adulterer, did they beat you, did they ruin your relationships with others, threaten your life or career, lead you into sin?

Spouse an Addict: I’m certain this is why we have an ever-widening circle of what is addiction, and why Sheila LoveHonorDelegateHenPeck likes to stretch that definition in her false teachings. If we accept the modern notion that an addiction is a sickness, what happened to “in sickness and in health”? What happened to praying for that person’s healing? What happened to being strength and helpmeet for that person to master his own sin and put it away?

Did they beat you: At least it wasn’t the meaningless word “abuse”. One could always lean on the favorite thing thrown at men … why did you choose somebody like that when you married? … But I always come back instead to a couple things: Where did the cultural trope of the married housewife with the frying pan come from? Or the shotgun wedding, or the idea that physical injury would be repaid by the wife’s brothers and father and male blood relatives? It seems like, before no-fault divorce, even this spousal violence happened and worked itself out, and, with the numbers we know today, we know women give at least as good as they get.

Of course, if one looks into Peter’s Epistle, as it comes to beating, the only thing we find is that the relationship of wife to husband follows immediately his discussion of the role of slave to master, so, if you have found yourself thus unequally yoked, you are commanded on the narrow path to pray to fix the heart of that bad man, bear the burden, and in the special provision provided for a wife to wordlessly win her husband’s heart for Christ.

Ruin your relationships with others: Let’s not even go toward the well-worn stereotype of married women cutting off their husbands’ single male friends… Let’s instead ask: What if the woman fails to cling to the new family unit? What if she’s too hung up on being a daughter or a sister or something else than being a wife? What if those relationships lead her to sin? What’s a husband to do? Shouldn’t some be ruined?

Threaten your life or career: Such an odd conflation of life and career. Lots of women like to talk tough about violence to their husbands – just eavesdrop when they’re in the hen circle drinking. But career…what if you have dramatically different views of the importance of your career to your new family unit? What if your career prevents you from actually being a mother? What if your career makes you think you’re the head of the family, and husband and children should uproot and move so you can get a promotion halfway across the country? Some of those careers should be threatened if they are threatening to the family.

It is good to remember first that God hates divorce, and second, because of the hardness of the human heart, he, in times past, made specific and well-circumscribed provisions for divorce. The Apostle Paul treated divorce specifically, and it is best not to try to enlarge the circle beyond what the apostle has permitted, since God very clearly hates oath breakers and especially oath breaking within his institution.

Excellent comment, JayBee. May I presume to point out one little thing?

It wasn’t the hardness of the human heart, it was the hardness of the man’s heart that caused God to lay out some provisions under which a man might divorce his wife. As far as I can tell, there is NO place in the Bible where it explains when a woman can file for divorce. I know the OP isn’t about Christianity and divorce, so I don’t want to get us too far off topic, but biblically-speaking, I don’t believe a woman ever has any right to file for divorce under any circumstances for any reason. The most she can do is separate from him and remain single or reconcile with him.

I’ve mentioned this point before and, as always, I do invite correction on this if I am wrong.

“What a quandry? What a conundrum? I agree, I don’t want divorcees to think it is okay to do what they did and I would much prefer to shun them but as a Christian I am commanded not to do so. I must forgive them. I don’t have a choice in the matter.”
This is no quandary! God calls us to enforce moral standards “within” the body of Christ.
Those outside the body are to be dealt with gently, but if Suzy Churchgirl has her white church wedding then 5 years later pulls trains at the local biker bar on girls night out, we the church better have something to say!

Moses was NOT allowed entry into the promised land for what I read as a pretty trivial offense. The good man who steadied the wagon transporting the Ark was killed instantly because he was not a priest and he touched the Ark.
God said “be ye perfect, even as I am perfect”
The Catholic church has done incalculable damage to itself by “forgiving” pedophile priests rather publicly denouncing them and tendering them to the courts for prosecution.
You have confused forgiveness with sanction.
This point is rather old and tiring, but bares repeating….choose to sin, choose to suffer!
If Jeffry Dahmer were released for prison and claimed reform, I still would not let him run a homosexual half-way house!
If Hitler had an epiphany and now loved the Jews, what Jew in his right mind would vote for him to be prime minister?
Bill Clinton would never be allowed to chaperone the High School girls Washington trip!

I have a frivorcee at my church who is quite the socialite. Other than me and a small handful of other men who will not acknowledge her presence, she has suffered no moral sanction for whore behavior! I know her Ex, great guy, totally blindsided by her serial affairs, no longer attends this church bty.
Ms tramp landed a guy (chubby, Beta) who had more money; she loves the big house, new car, European vacations…the church LOVES the fat donations….pathetic really!

That is why it is better for a man to have more of an angry ready face than a smiling one. I can’t believe how many chicks smile at me more when I look like I’m pissed off about something.

Ever notice how children react to you (or any men who are strangers)? I think their brains are designed to recognize grown men as a threat and act accordingly. Unlike the cute baby face of the cuddly kitten or puppy our faces register as predatory. The opposite of neotenous we look to most everything like killers (some men more than others). What do you suppose scowling and acting angry does? If your observation is correct I would imagine it is because women are wanting to stay on the angry mans good side more than them being happy that you are scowling.

I have a “feminized” version of the chart there and I also go into how women are encouraged to believe their SMV is equitable to that of men.

By a combined effort of feminism, feminine primacy and its imperatives women have been socialized and acculturated to believe that their SMV profile encompasses and is synchronous with that of men. Since women are essentially men, Equalism (the religion of feminism) convinces women that their SMV schedule should at least be identical to that of men.

I could have simply recolored the MEN bell curve from my previous SMV graph to illustrate the feminized redefinition of SMV, but that would be inaccurate. It wouldn’t account for the obvious benefits women expect to enjoy in their true sexual peak years (22-24) in addition to the masculinized SMV feminization has convinced the modern woman of.

One thing I did find a need to account for was the Myth of Sexual peak. As Team Red laments, and in my post Myth of the Biological Clock, this feminine defined delusion is deceptively close to women’s post-Wall valuation. Since men’s SMV generally peaks around 38, women needed a social convention that would also make their sexual peak coincide with men’s. Thus we read the endless articles about sexual peak inflating older women’s sexual prowess above that of the 22 year old ‘girl-children’ men manifestly prefer for sexual partners. Equalism enforces the delusion that if men are at their most desirable at later stages of life, then so too must be wo-MEN.

To forgive is divine. To shame is not. We are actually commanded to forgive the divorcees, and not to shun them. Shunning is the worst possible form of physical pain someone could inflict upon someone else.

This sounds like the phrase a female Churchian frivorcee would find as a truism. It does such a good job of ignoring the hard edges in the Bible and greasing the bearings on the hamster wheel, when really it is the rat poison in the alfalfa cube.

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
(Mat 18:15-17)

If the Church has a standard that frivolous divorce is bad (and IT does), why should there be any expectation on the frivorcee that there comprehensive flouting of the clear word in the Bible is going to be rewarded with a “bye”? That is why the Bible also plainly tells divorcees to remain divorced:

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
(Mat 5:32)

If we want to be a part of Christ we need to do what Jesus tells us, if we want to be churchian all we have to do is what the world does and claim to be following Jesus.

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
(Heb 6:4-6)

I think frivorce falls int Hebrews 6:4-6 territory VERY often and is a dangerous ground to be treading for a follower of Christ. To the world it is no big deal.

long story short
if we conduct an experiment
and place family, motherhood, grandmotherhood, family, church, god, life, liberty, happiness, honor on one side of the room
and a bit pile of steaming buttehxtz and abortionsz on the other side of the room
the typical woman will run towards
da buttehxtz abprtionz

the federal reservez relaizedz this
and in order to destory the familziizez
(as a central plank of der communsit manisfestoes is a central bank & the destructcion of da fmailiez)
they gave womenz da choicez
and encourged them to followz
their buttinzgzlzlzo and ginaatinzgzlzzlo
over god, man, law, honor, morality, and fmailyz

and so you get what we haves here
which is da way dey wantz it
and so dey getz it
lzolzozozozozozz

To the contrary, smiling when people think you should be pissed off is even scarier. I do this on my job all the time and with service people who screw up. When they think that you are going to strip their hide off and you are calm and friendly while indicating the you know they screwed up it puts people into hyperdrive trying to fix it. Self-control is a form of social dominance, smiling when you should be angry makes you a mutant and is unexpected. People often think that what this means is that you are either REALLY angry or insane. People don’t mess with that.

Can you state the references for the hardness of mans heart for divorce?

Are you trying to say it was mans anger at eve, for not permitting divorce?

I’m not sure where you got that reference from, I thought it was part of the curse of eve, she was forced to have man as her head

The whole apple thing was knowledge of the microcosm, as opposed to the macroscopic state of existence, ie immortality is a macroscopic principle, death is the subcontext of immortality on a microcosmic scale …

MB, by all means, stand by mutely while a woman blows up a marriage for no good reason, leaves a man unhappy and alone, takes children away from their father and introduces them to a series of “uncles,” and ends up living at least partially on the taxpayer — all because speaking up and convincing her to stick it out might benefit her. Who’s obsessed again?

Freewheeling promiscuity isn’t seen by young women as an end unto itself, it is seen as a path to marriage. — Dalrock

I think understanding this is the key. Yes, crazy as it is, the 19-year-old girl having a drunken hookup in a strange dorm room really thinks she’s preparing for marriage 10 years down the road. She’s learning to be exciting in bed; she’s having experiences which will make her personality more interesting (sassy!); and she’s finding out what kind of man she likes.

So by the time she actually marries at 29 or 35, she’s been through this relationship cycle several times: meet a guy she really likes, start sleeping with him, be a couple for some period of time, lose interest in him, move on. And they probably do keep getting better, since they get
older as she goes, so they’re increasing in SMV. If she marries #10, he’s probably better than all the ones before. But if #10 is better than #9, who was better than #8, how does she know #11 wouldn’t be even better?

Now she has a habit of seeing relationships as temporary experiences that prepare her for something better. Just as her last boyfriend prepared her for her husband, her first husband is preparation for her second one. She’s not easily going to stop until she’s convinced that the next one won’t be better than the current one. It’s hard for her to judge that, because it’s always worked before, and everyone tells her it’ll be fine.

Something I’ve never been able to figure out: why do low quality slutty women never give an average man the ability to reject them? Why do they believe that a man asking them out is anything more than just getting to know someone? They will reject getting to know a man without knowing anything about him. And if the man got to know her, he would probably reject her. Does anyone know what’s going on with this?

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Are you trying to say it was mans anger at eve, for not permitting divorce?

I’m not sure I understand your question. My original point is that God allowed men to divorce their wives for sexual immorality and then remarry. They could divorce their wives for other reasons too, but they had to write her a certificate of divorce and then remain single.

My point was that that the Bible permits men to divorce their wives, provided they follow certain guidelines, but nowhere in the Bible can I find that women are allowed to divorce their husbands for any reason. But as I said, if I am wrong about that, if the Bible does permit women to divorce their husbands, then I ask that someone please show me the verses that allow it.

The reason I say that is because there seems to be a very common belief among Christians that women are permitted to divorce their husbands for infidelity or “abuse” but I find no such allowance in Scripture.

Cail, thanks for laying it out so effectively, in all of its gory detail. This should be plastered across full-page ads and billboards and anything else that we could manage. But it still wouldn’t help.

This is the accepted pattern, and it’s nearly impossible to convince ANYONE that it’s a bad plan. It works just fine, after all, until the day when it finally doesn’t. Then, the damage is done and it’s too late to choose a better plan. It’s a grim scene.

Cail Corbishev sets out, what is the most seductive of illusions, in great clarity. It is in fact even worse than he imagines: I retell (though I have possibly written this here before) what an ex-gf of mine said to me. She told me (confessed?) that in her life she had slept with sixty men. Now, we know that that means we should double the figure, but let us be charitable and say that her N count was 100. It so happens that she told me that of those men 10% were not any good in bed. I apologised for my lack of performance but was naturally delighted that in fact I was apparently in the top 10% (eat your heart out Roissy, Krauser etc – though frankly I don’t think I was any good at all with her – but that is another matter). Now, she wanted for us to resume our former dalliance. Consider: Had I taken her up on her kind offer, what my position would have been. I may be in the top 10%, and I may be able to re-kindle my former athleticism, but statistically I cannot reasonably expect to be No 1 even if I am also unlikely to be No 10. Let us says that I am number 6. That means that I would not be any where near as good as guys 1,2,3,4 and 5. Consider how disappointing that would be for her, and how despairing for me in the knowledge that I was not even in the top three; that there would be five other guys she would be preferring. I declined her invitation and so I suppose she has since had one or more new boyfriends: what is the likelihood that any of those are even on the top ten per cent – probably about 10% – a one in ten chance that her latest boyfriend is ‘any good’.

As with the stopping rule, eventually you need to settle for the woman who is no worse than the one you have rejected, but how can you do that when you believe that out there, there is a guy even better than your now departed No. 1.

A divorce is called violence by God. I never trust nice divorcees- ever. The divorce itself is proof that they are violent people, and even more so if it was frivolous. If they treated their closest relative whom they promised to love for life violently, why should their niceness reveal a sweet interior to strangers/acquaintances?

This is a good comment. Ive wondered about the contradiction when a woman files a divorce for “emotional abuse”, then proceeds to take a man and reduce him to wallowing in his own mucus, even to the point of suicide. I’ve seen too many men lowered to sickly depressive sleep deprived desperation. I then know that regardless whether in Malachi we over simplify the expression “God Hates Divorce”, which we do if we do not read the text, He indeed would not like seeing the misery put upon that man (or woman). Its also interesting that men endure emotional abuse as a matter of course in merely living with a woman….even earlier…in even comporting with women. Yet men hold those emotions in check and seek the bigger picture. then the man is overcome by such loss and grief that male suicide after frivorce is multiples higher over the past decades. Its sickening to me. It is violence indeed, unto the children and the man, and to even extended family and friends. It is stone cold covered with a veneer of crock tears and empathy seeking behavior.

The reason I say that is because there seems to be a very common belief among Christians that women are permitted to divorce their husbands for infidelity or “abuse” but I find no such allowance in Scripture.

I concur, in verse or contextually, implied or express, I cannot find it either. Know that I take no great liberties with a man’s “right” to divorce either, that I see this on technicals, but almost any allowance for divorce without some challenge necessarily is an affront to Gods intended nature of marriage.

Look, I don’t expect you to relate or comprehend. But people considering divorce should know as Dalrock is pointing out in both of these related posts, you are trading one set of bad circumstances for another. If you can change the original set of circumstances, that is obviously the route to take. If you can’t, you’re most likely up a creek either way. Happy endings are the exception, not the rule. They are easier if the bar in the original marriage was set rather low. But divorced or not, you will never be entirely separated from your former spouse. You will continue to have moral and sometimes financial obligations to them until death do you part. If you take marriage seriously, that person is not tossed out like the trash. So, you do the best you can by them under the circumstances. You let go with love. You hate the sin, not the sinner.

Two problems.

1. Why would you not expect that I would relate or comprehend? I’d wager I have more personal experience with this than 80% of the people who post here and around similar sites.

I have been the man in his own mucus, on the pointy end of silliness like emotional abuse accusations, and other things that fit, as Jaybee says aptly, into these categories that are made as wide as they need to be made to get THAT women’s conscience through them.

2. What difference does it make that one relate and/or comprehend?
This gets to The Personal Jesus for Christians, and the mantra that “God Released Me” which Ive heard to the point of nausea. Its not about whether I or anyone comprehend. people may well understand and sympathize with a woman, but that does not change anything about the absolute truths. The outcome does improve with long-suffering, this has been studied and shown true.

It doesnt matter that you are cleaved or not from the ex. You are divorced, kids are shuttling about. Things are upset from the norm. Its bad. Its wrong. And its all about haaaapiness, which, in addition to what SSM says about the absence of scripture supporting female filed divorce, there is an absence of scripture pointing to primacy of happiness. That gets Christian women’s panties bunched up big time, the notion that their happiness is not a variable in their decisions.

these are very basic things, I’m surprised to see a sales pitch to the contrary. And to my repeated point about fear not shame driving men in matters of gender order, here we see this again. men fear setting these things right because the blow back would be epic. After all, regarding game or no game or whatever the marital issue may be, the end that is the end is divorce and Christian women crave the right to both experience it vicariously in others, and to pop one themselves if they need to. So they have everything aligned to support that. There you have the source of the men’s fear……not shame about the scriptures.

Empath, it is also violent from the perspective of the children. One day you think you have this happy life, the next you are a pawn in some sick power game while you watch your mother destroy your life.. so it feels that divorce often destroys a mother’s natural affection for her child.

“”nowhere in the Bible can I find that women are allowed to divorce their husbands for any reason. But as I said, if I am wrong about that, if the Bible does permit women to divorce their husbands, then I ask that someone please show me the verses that allow it.””

I believe this to be true. However,women within the Synagogue do file for divorce(Legally within the law) but,are somewhat “shunned” in the eyes if the “Jewish Matriarchy”.As far as the New Testament?…I could not tell you.

rmax… with Kate we have exhibit A for divorcees who have killed their natural affection for their child. It is a hateful act to place a child in close company with a hate filled rabid man. My first two comments were not actually about her personally… but if you wanted to really see bitchy…

“”It is a hateful act to place a child in close company with a hate filled rabid man. “”

I do not find the divorced men to be “hateful”……..I find the wimminz to be “hateful”….the men are “disappointed”……I also find that the men (post divorce) are much better single parents!….the only thing that single mothers accomplish with their children(especially boys) is “raising future inmates”.After all,80% of inmates in Federal Penitentiaries in Canada are the product of single mothers….Go figure!

“”Well if she is that devoted to the pope…then she must be worse than a divorced lady or single mother””

I do not understand your post……From what I have read from your posts you are a “staunch Catholic”?……..So from my perspective you are also committed to “The Bishop of Rome” as you should be. But,how is a single or divorced single mother worse than a “Popeaphile”….just curious!

@jaybee: “What if she’s too hung up on being a daughter or a sister or something else than being a wife?” This is a really interesting question. And one that I think would be challenging, especially for young brides. I know that it was a problem for me. I always felt torn between my mother and my ex-husband.

@Empath: I am not used to many understanding what I am saying. I don’t know you well enough to know if you would or not, so I said I didn’t expect it.

Its funny to me that its okay for women to be misogynists, but men can’t be.

This is where the church COULD actually help. Oh, the pastor will use the greener grass cliche, but thats not telling anyone anything, because comes the rationale Kate demonstrated. She will necessarily be happier with the next one because she really really tried (to change him), and she had nothing left to give (in terms of effort to change him) so she had to move on (because he would not change) and find a guy that she CAN change

REMOVING COMPETITION
3. Mate manipulation (divorce, locking down resources so other don’t have access)
4. Competitor manipulation (fake withdrawal from competing while secretly on the prowl ie. no good men)

The visceral response to divorcees is interesting as women are intrinsically aware that divorce is a method of ‘mate manipulation’, monopolizing male resources from competiting women.

but through a combination of media cheerleading and profound miscalculation very large numbers of women are finding themselves on the wrong side of the divorce and remarriage calculation.

This sort of thing might lead some to conclude that women don’t understand cause and effect very well. There is a reason that in all traditional societies (European or Asian), a man (the father or husband) made important decisions about a woman’s life. Societies that did not enforce this, quickly vanished.

When I was in college I confronted a group of 8 or 10 hot white girls and their response was consistent with this article. One if the girls, a super hot blonde I wanted more then anything stated she was going to have her cake AND eat her cake with ice cream and sprinkles. All the girls giggled and agreed. All related because they were all doing the same thing. All were spreading their legs and spending weekends on there backs and knees after the typical club bar scene party frat party etc. It was all about them having fun and Drama and complaining. They didn’t give a damn about getting married or spending time with the good guy. And now these stupid women , as they turn 30 and beyond and lose their looks suddenly it becomes important they cash in whatever chips they have left that were not wasted on the wrong guys. Problem is they don’t HAVE any chips left or the value isn’t enough to demand, in many cases, the basics they need let alone what eh believe they are entitled to in their delusional minds.

I looked up the blonde whore from college and she is single with a low paying job. She still has most of her looks but compared to how I remembered her its going going gone. She JUST starting to look a little busted in the face and its only going to accelerate now after 30. I actually found myself hesitating when the automatic question of “would I fuck her?” Popped not my head. Before thier was no questions. Before I would cringe and wince I wanted to fuck her so bad and had Disneyland fantasies about putting a ring on her finger. She was hot hot hot. Now it’s hesitation.

Nows its time to pull off her sprinkles and ice cream. Facebook is and amazing thing and I will be sure to periodically check if she is able to land that last minute suitor.

I noticed that friends who had been loaning out their husbands to give me a hand with simple home or car repairs began dropping by while he was working at my place.

I forgot to respond to this earlier, but any woman who sends her husband over to a single/divorced woman’s house on his own is simply an idiot. I don’t care how trustworthy he is; that’s just unnecessarily asking for trouble. Even if nothing happens, it could result in rumors that something did happen, which can cause plenty of harm. A married man and a single woman, or vice versa, should never be spending time together unobserved. I’m amazed that these women were doing this even before she announced her availability. I guess the impulse to show off their husbands was greater than their common sense.

sunshinemary says: August 24, 2013 at 7:22 pmWell, isn’t that interesting. What I have noticed is that divorced women and single mothers, most especially at church, sometimes think they have the right to other women’s husbands’ labor.

Seriously, is it my Christian duty to send my husband over to do household repairs for man-hunting divorcees?

Not if there are single Christian guys in the church they can recruit instead…

Mr.A is Mr.A says: August 25, 2013 at 9:53 am
>> IBB: Shunning is the worst possible form of physical pain someone could inflict upon someone else.

Flatly and absurdly false. Shunning != physical pain.

You obviously have never been ostracized before – being intentionally shunned is like a knife in the heart that’s twisted at regular intervals with no indication of care or concern on the part of the people with power to take the knife away.

“The effects of ostracism are a health concern,” says Kipling Williams, professor of psychological sciences who researches ostracism. “Excluding and ignoring people, such as giving them the cold shoulder or silent treatment, are used to punish or manipulate, and people may not realize the emotional or physical harm that is being done. Some purposely hurt others by not inviting them to a party or ignoring them at work, and others may not even realize they are ostracizing someone when they ignore a new temporary employee or a friend after a disagreement.

“In the past, people who were ostracized at work or by a friend could seek support and control through another significant relationship. But because people report growing more distant from extended family and relying on fewer close friendships, they might lack the support to deal with ostracism.”

@anorthern i have torn my rotator cuff and from an experience of pain, i couldnt care less about being shunned. who gives a bleap about of close-minded people? go your own way if it happens and then those same shunners have no power over you.

I may have missed it mentioned, but one reason that rebuking/shaming is a must, as pointed out in Corinthians, and unfortunately proven in today’s Churches, is to make sure that those who sin, and remain unrepentant, don’t infect the other members of the church. Open sin in The Church will spread like a cancer to the rest of the Body, as we have seen. One example of this is that most of the church pews today are half filled with adulterous marriages. “Church discipline” was practiced, as outlined in scripture, until around the early 20th century when it started its decline to the point where it’s been virtually eliminated. “Wouldn’t want to offend anyone and hurt their feeeeeeelings now would we”.

“I may have missed it mentioned, but one reason that rebuking/shaming is a must, as pointed out in Corinthians, and unfortunately proven in today’s Churches, is to make sure that those who sin, and remain unrepentant, don’t infect the other members of the church”

-They will call you judgmental and pull the you don’t know me – only God can judge me – you don’t know my situation card. They will flip it around on you to make you the one who needs to be shamed.

I have a frivorcee at my church who is quite the socialite. Other than me and a small handful of other men who will not acknowledge her presence, she has suffered no moral sanction for whore behavior! I know her Ex, great guy, totally blindsided by her serial affairs, no longer attends this church bty.
Ms tramp landed a guy (chubby, Beta) who had more money; she loves the big house, new car, European vacations…the church LOVES the fat donations….pathetic really!

It is pathetic. And unfortunately, it is not all that uncommon. As long as Pastors are PAID, then there is a conflict of interest in the church. Decisions in church become political deicisions and not Christian ones. They become focused on making the people with the most money (and the largest donations) happy because they are the ones who keep the lights on, not the poor guys who was just frivorced by that gold-digging c-nt of a wife because he lost his job (and she lost her lifestyle) during the recession.

This is real life in church. Its been that way in pretty much every single church I’ve attended and I’ve hated it. Can’t stand it. Typically, I’ll leave the church and find a new one when I get truly sick of it. But that is the conflict of interest the church body has when they have so many expenses, got to keep the people who bring in the dollars, happy. And largely that is the women because if THEY ARE happy, then they make their husbands donate and that makes the Pastor happy. It THEY AREN’T happy, they find a new church and they take their donations dollars with them and that can cost the Pastor (and his family) their lifestyle. It is almost never the husband who picks the church. He doesn’t even want to be there (because 16 Sundays a month, he’s thinking football.) So although it should be his decision, quite often, he spiritually capitulated!

I’m glad you all found some scripture references explaining why (in your own way) it is okay to shun. Well, no, it really isn’t. That said, to discourage this behavior only shunning the frivorcing harpies works as it encourages the next harpy NOT to frivorce. But the folks who are willing to do this are so few and have so little influence in the church, it doesn’t really matter. You are just as likely to be Joe-of-Jacksoned out of the church if you spend too much of your time shunning the frivorces, and then you really lose because you aren’t changing public opinion.

I have never-EVER been in a church where the Pastor mentioned Luke 16-18, and I expect that I never will. He would lose far too many members if he made a big deal out of that (even though that scripture is perfectly understandable.) I mentioned Luke 16-18 in Bible study once and the person leading it told me that they specifically will not discuss that part of the Bible because more than half the people in the study married people who were divorced! How can you begin to have that discussion when the person you are discussing it with would be acknowledging they are an adulteror just by getting married?

Dalrock’s post is (as usual) excellent. But I don’t think we are asking the right question. The question we should be asking ourselves is this: how do we change public opinion in our churches such that this type of frivorcing behavior isn’t tolerated? I haven’t seen one idea on that one yet and until we get there, all of this is just talk.

@IBB: Your clarity of thought and argument is all over the park. You are contradicting yourself with your deprecation of divorcees who harm men with their actions, but you refuse to acknowledge clear Biblical teaching on how to rectify it, as stated earlier. Continue in this vein and you’ll be curch-shopping for the rest of your days.

When Americans get into the business of buying a house they are quickly seduced into a government/market collusion of incentives designed to make them think about a basic human question of personal values and economics, “where and how should I live?” and reform it into a market commodity question “how do I best leverage a government endorsed and sponsored margin call?”

Of course we don’t call it a margin call we call it a mortgage.

In any case as with stocks and commodities margin calls go very well for some people. In a larger healthy system they work out ok for a sufficient number of people. At mass they are risk controlled through MBSs and a buyer of last resort (the fed).

But along the journey a lot of folks wake up and realize what mattered in the end was the basic question of values and home economics, “where and how should I live?” and for the majority the degree to which we allowed ourselves to be seduced in iur youths by the debt/commodity model becomes the degree to which we subordinated our own personal long term values and priorities to a larger social imperative. The imperative has a raison d’ etre that can be examined in its own right but serving the best interests of the people who succcumb to it, is simply not what it is about.
The interest … at age and at youth, is the same: values, priority and home economy. The trouble is that in youth we are distracted from allof this, seduced with borrowed time and the glistening of commodity. Who teaches youth about this? Who even knows or believes it?

Your clarity of thought and argument is all over the park. You are contradicting yourself with your deprecation of divorcees who harm men with their actions, but you refuse to acknowledge clear Biblical teaching on how to rectify it, as stated earlier. Continue in this vein and you’ll be curch-shopping for the rest of your days.

Just because this is hard thing to do doesn’t make it wrong.

Yes, you are right. Because it is hard, it doesn’t make it wrong. But be very careful how you go about rectifying this problem. Show me a church where everyone in it (including the Pastor) are critical of frivorcing harpies, and I’ll show you an EMPTY and BANKRUPT church.

innocentbystanderboston says: “Yes, you are right. Because it is hard, it doesn’t make it wrong. But be very careful how you go about rectifying this problem. Show me a church where everyone in it (including the Pastor) are critical of abortioners and murderers and sodomites, and I’ll show you an EMPTY and BANKRUPT church, as Jesus is pro-abortion, pro-murder, and pro-sodomy, according to we churchians.”

Singh, Devendra. “Female judgment of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships: role of waist-to-hip ratio and financial status.” Journal of personality and social psychology 69.6 (1995): 1089.

Hill, Sarah E., and David M. Buss. “The mere presence of opposite-sex others on judgments of sexual and romantic desirability: Opposite effects for men and women.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34.5 (2008): 635-647.

“Female intrasexual competition is perceived as a hindrance to feminist goals of equality. This paper argues a modern feminist theory could be consistent with natural selection. The social science feminist framework believes female competition is fostered by a patriarchal power structure benefiting from a division amongst women. Feminists argue that environment plays far greater roles in shaping people than does biology, and thus cultural reform will alleviate this competition. It is an implicit assumption of the hunter-gatherer model that survival is a cooperative venture between partners. Thus, women competing over high status mates and men over a woman’s mate value are simply functional coevolved strategies; they do not impose a value-laden hierarchy. Nature may give the appearance of inequality and injustice between the sexes. However, a cognitively complex brain-mind could reconcile the meaning of coevolved strategies and educate individuals past their perceived ills toward more equitable outcomes with an evolutionary feminist theory.”

Show me a church where everyone in it (including the Pastor) are critical of frivorcing harpies, and I’ll show you an EMPTY and BANKRUPT church.

Right, like every single church prior to 1950. Oh wait, they were fuller then, never mind.

You’re vastly overstating the effect of pastors’ salaries. (What, you’ll only attend a church where the pastor is an unpaid volunteer? How does he eat?) Money really has little to do with it. As I said the last time this claim came up, you could walk into any modern church office with a briefcase full of cash, and offer to give the church double its usual yearly take right there on the spot if they started preaching traditionally on headship and submission, and most wouldn’t do it. They don’t have strong traditional positions that they’re keeping secret to avoid offending anyone; they’re actually preaching what they believe. Most modern priests and pastors say those parts of scripture are passe or misunderstood because they think that’s the truth.

If money were the issue, then when churches started emptying out in the 1970s and ’80s while they were becoming more feminized, they would have gone back to the more traditional positions they had in the 1950s when they were full. They didn’t; most doubled-down on the liberalism and kept pushing it as the pews got emptier and emptier.

SSM, rmax & Mark…I think it can be helpful in questions like those to look at Talmud because it gives you a sense of what learned rabbis between 100 BC & 200 AD made of it while not at all influenced by our modern culture, liberal or (American) Christian fundamentalist.
Do that and what you get is the “get” whereby a man can terminate the marriage by giving his wife a bill of divorce. Importantly the fact that the man could divorce but the wife could not was perceived as an inequality that required a remedy so to discourage frivolous divorce a man and woman marrying sign a ketubah which is a sort of proto prenuptial agreement that obligates the man to the welfare of his ex in the event that he should exercise this liberty.
In modern times this has come to be viewed as inadequate because people will divorce in civil court but some husbands have been know to use their exclusive right to give a get as leverage in civil law where for example: a husband may refuse to give his wife a get unless she agrees to favorable terms of support or custody under civil authorities. This practice has led to protracted divorces where though the couple is civilly divorced the wife cannot remarry because without the get she remains religiously married. Common practice to prevent this is to draw up the ketubah to state that the husband will submit to a rabbical court and give his wife a get if he is ordered to do so by the court, elsewise he faces stiff fines i.e.:$100/day until he gives her a get. These contracts are enforceable in civil court so if the ketubah is written for it then a woman may plead for a divorce from a rabbical court which may order it. Otherwise the upshot is: in answer to your question it would appear the rabbis were unanimous and the strict word of scripture did not account for a woman to divorce her husband, but we would be remiss not to notice or acknowledge that from the earliest times some force, such as the kettubah, was understood as necessary to make such conditions socially workable.

Right, like every single church prior to 1950. Oh wait, they were fuller then, never mind.

And we didn’t have feminism back then either (certainly not like what we have today.) So this is moot. We aren’t going back to 1950 I can’t understand the reason for mentioning this.

You’re vastly overstating the effect of pastors’ salaries. (What, you’ll only attend a church where the pastor is an unpaid volunteer? How does he eat?) Money really has little to do with it.

Money has absolutely everything to do with it. It is ALWAYS about the money. Always. As far as how the Pastor eats if he isn’t paid, attend a church with a lay Pastor who earns his living doing something else during the week. They do exist. If you attend those kind of churches, you’ll hear much more from the King James Bible and much less from what the harpies want to hear.

As I said the last time this claim came up, you could walk into any modern church office with a briefcase full of cash, and offer to give the church double its usual yearly take right there on the spot if they started preaching traditionally on headship and submission, and most wouldn’t do it.

Has this ever happened? I’m guessing no. So we’ll never know, will we? This is all just make-us-feel-good rhetoric.

They don’t have strong traditional positions that they’re keeping secret to avoid offending anyone; they’re actually preaching what they believe. Most modern priests and pastors say those parts of scripture are passe or misunderstood because they think that’s the truth.

Doubt it. I think they are saying whatever they have to say to keep people in the pews.

If money were the issue, then when churches started emptying out in the 1970s and ’80s while they were becoming more feminized, they would have gone back to the more traditional positions they had in the 1950s when they were full. They didn’t; most doubled-down on the liberalism and kept pushing it as the pews got emptier and emptier.

That makes zero sense. I COMPLETELY disagree with every aspect of your mistaken recount of churchian history.

Churches started emptying out in the 1970s specifically BECAUSE the country was becoming more feminized. And the churches hadn’t caught on yet. They were still trying to keep things according to the Bible and feminist women would hear none of that. They voted with their wallets and their feet (and those men that married them were all too happy to leave because they didn’t have to miss kick-off.) That hollowed out the Congregations, not the church being feminized.

It was the late 1980s and early 1990s when you started seeing more and more female Pastors (who I agree, didn’t preach on certain parts of the Bible) and much more selective Bible teaching in churches (both Protestant and Roman Catholic) but that was just an attempt to hold on to what few members remained. Feminism had already done the damning damage to Christianity. That was most certainly the case where I was from (Massachusetts.)

What part of the country are you from Cail? That is an important question given the direction of this discussion because your recolection of history is NOTHING like I remember it. I remember very vividly sitting there on Tuesday nights as a Deacon at the age of 19, and listening to things that I couldn’t even believe, listening to people saying that the church had to teach whatever it could to try and get more fannies in the seats because people (particularly the young ones) were leaving in droves. They finally came to the conclusion that the only way they could keep the lights on was to say whatever the women in the church wanted to hear. It was that or shut the doors and default on the mortgage.

Show me a successful, Hellfire and Brimstone, Fundamentalist King James Bible preaching Pastor, and I’ll show you a Pastor looking for work. If he wants to preach like he should (like everyone at Dalrock’s forum wants him to) and he better be making a living doing something else because Cail, there just isn’t enough of people like you and I in one area that would go to his church. We are drastically outnumbered, and we growing fewer.

Show me a church where everyone in it (including the Pastor) are critical of abortioners and murderers and sodomites, and I’ll show you an EMPTY and BANKRUPT church, as Jesus is pro-abortion, pro-murder, and pro-sodomy, according to we churchians.

Not so much the murderers GBFM, but yes, far too many churches are “pro-choice” and that is just to keep women going to church. The Synod in Cleveland for the UCC, they are very “pro-choice” couldn’t believe when I read it. Terrible. SINFUL. Deplorable. But certainly understandable. The moment I saw that statement from the Synod, I went to my Pastor and told him I was leaving the church and told him why. I would no longer be a member. His response was more “…there’s the door, don’t let it hit you where the good lord split you.” I’ve been non-Denominational since then.

In the movie, the woman’s friends were all crying with her and consoling her and “you go, girl”-ing her, and egging her on toward divorce. Considering what I now know about “The Herd”, I wonder how much of that was simple jealousy/sabotage, and how many of those women would have been thinking, “Girl, you got a husband who’s a fireman, in great shape, doesn’t cheat on you, doesn’t beat you, and holds down a good job? Yeah, if you’re droppin’ that, I’m picking it up!”

At 2.24pm on the 25th inst Liberty Family Masculinity raises a question which I cannot see that any one else has attempted a reply to, and as I have also long puzzled about the very same point will attempt a reply.

LFM asks why it is that slutty women reject decent guys. One might think that a decent guy making a play for a slutty woman would be like Xmas come early for her, but in my experience that is not what happens and they reject out of hand (and usually sooner rather than later). I tentatively suggest that the following may be reasons for this: 1. As they know they are not worth it they are contemptuous of any man who would man-up for them. 2. As they are slutty they reason that the man will sooner or later reject them and thus they can, by rejecting the guy, falsely raise their Sexual Market Value.

Whilst writing, TFH at 9.13pm, again says that women do not understand cause and effect very well. I think that is worth repeating until the cows come home, but why should it be that cause and effect are difficult for a woman to grasp? My tentative suggestion is that, as they go through life, women discover than no matter how badly they screw-up there will always be one or more men (white knights and manginas) happy to treat them as born again virgins and provide that soft landing for them (even as they jump from 10,000 feet without a parachute). Even Alpha males inviting them into their bed will (as Dalrock says) inevitably reinforce their sense of their own desirability. We may be dismissive of sluts but even a slut can impress her married female friends by demonstrating that she has had, even for short-time love, the attention of a man, for it is worth remembering that most sluts are of only average looks, and thus unable to garner much male attention without in some ways putting-out.

My tentative suggestion is that, as they go through life, women discover than no matter how badly they screw-up there will always be one or more men (white knights and manginas) happy to treat them as born again virgins and provide that soft landing for them

This is true generally. What I mean is not just about her sexual escapades where a man will come along and snowflake her, but even later in marriage women do not generally have to face the consequences of their actions. There is always a guy with a broom behind them, usually the husband. Lacking cause and affect, decisions are made, things unravel and become….inconvenient, and the guy dutifully picks up the consequences. It seems this is a huge part of average and above looking women’s life experience.

In times past, men were legally responsible for the debts of their wives (financial mate guarding). That is no longer the law, yet in practice what choice do husbands have but to discharge their wives debts? I can not only think of more than one of my friends who have had to bail-out their wives, but as soon as they are bailed out, these wives promptly wang their credit-cards back up to the limit. If the men then fail to further bail-out, the women can always attempt to find a new man and spend his money. Not all women are financially irresponsible and not all men responsible but women do seem to be clear winners in the impecuniousness Olympics.

“Show me a successful, Hellfire and Brimstone, Fundamentalist King James Bible preaching Pastor, and I’ll show you a Pastor looking for work. If he wants to preach like he should (like everyone at Dalrock’s forum wants him to) and he better be making a living doing something else because Cail, there just isn’t enough of people like you and I in one area that would go to his church. We are drastically outnumbered, and we growing fewer.”

Here in the Midwest, there are growing churches, rapidly growing, and they all have one thing in common, they are fundamentalist full gospel churches. The empty churches are the traditional “main line” sorts (Lutheran, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian).
The children of the Boomers have observed the carnage of their narcissistic parents and are rejecting their choices in a big way. The marriage strike is evidence, the post-boomers look at mom’s 5 failed marriages and say no thanks.
This is where faith is rewarded;
If the Catholic church punished the pedophile priests rather than hide them, that Church would be much healthier now.
But, lets go back to scripture. “The gate is narrow and FEW enter.” The body of Christ must stand on purity and accept the paltry numbers…but I believe real truth is a major draw!
I do believe the masses are yearning for some truth, somewhere. The kids were lied to by divorced parents, the public is lied to by criminal politicians, the weather man lies about global warming, the drug companies lie about their medications, women are lied to about feminism, men are lied to about marriage and relationships….truth is its own reward, I believe real truth is a major draw!
Look at this Blog…thin skin need not apply!

what ye have to realize is that innocentbystanderboston navigates not by the higher ideals, truth, beauty, and honor, but by the bottom bottom butthexttaulz line.

innocentbystanderboston in previous posts stated that JEsus and Moses wants you to demand blowjobs form your wife and serve her butt tinzgzlzlzzoz.

innocentbystanderboston doesn’t have a sense of the spiritually bankrupt, but his only worry is that a church would go monetarily bankrupt. innocentbystanderboston considers Jesus a failure because Jesus was poor and because Jesus never demanded blowjobsz from his wife, nor sought to serve a woman’s butt and gina tinzgzlzllzzoz. innocentbystanderboston would be all for a church making money off porn and sevring butt and gina tinzgzlzlzlzolzooz.

the hilarious thing is that because he obviously was raised without a father, innocentbystanderboston never developed a manly sense of Truth and Honor.

and so his fallen Churchianity is mired in butt itzinzgzlzlzozozlzooz, blowjobz, and mammon. JEsus taught that “One cannot serve two masters–both God and Mammon,” so innocentbystanderboston grinned and kicked JEsus the hell out of his church, shoved his cock in his wive’s blowhole, and proclaimed “Hallejuah!! Amen! Now that is almighty Chritsian headship!”

innocentbystanderboston says: “Yes, you are right. Because it is hard, it doesn’t make it wrong. But be very careful how you go about rectifying this problem. Show me a church where everyone in it (including the Pastor) are critical of abortioners and murderers and sodomites, and I’ll show you an EMPTY and BANKRUPT church, as Jesus is pro-abortion, pro-murder, and pro-sodomy, according to we churchians.”

Opus, 1984 to 1993, I did counseling of divorced men. There were a number of cases, not just bad planning by wives, but deliberate writing of bad checks.

And, though the dearies who did this belonged in jail, the cops would talk to the men (after divorce) and shame them into paying off the bad checks. “What sort of man lets the mother of his children go to jail?”

Bernankified:
Weighed down with a soul-crushing amount of federally-guaranteed student-loan debt.
The name is obviously derived from Fed Chief Ben Bernanke.
I met a cute chick, but she was so bernankified that I couldn’t see a future, so I dropped her.

innocentbystanderboston replaced the teachings of Jesus Christ with his Bernankified version of Churchianity which focused on butetehxt, fiat debt, blowjopobz, and serving a woman’s butt and gina tingzzlzllzoz over Christ and God zlozozolzolz.

I’d like to thank @Dalrock for watching Fireproof so that I didn’t have to… Also, @Dalrock, is there a contemporary one that you might recommend as a good Christian movie on marriage? Since nature abhors a vacuum…

Don’t get married ever. There is no reason to. The system is corrupt, women are corrupt, just stay as far away from marriage as you can. There is no escape, there is no single one woman that can stay clear of this. They will use it, they are power hungry. Just don’t get married, that’s the only, the ONLY solution. All women a spinster, all men bachelors.

A woman’s courtship value is equal or less than the lowest price she ever gave her pussy away for. lzozozoz

After a woman has had a one-night stand
or given her pussy for free
her courtship value
is 0.
or less than 0.

As why would you want to be the guy
who pays for what others got when it was younger hotter tighter
forty pounds lighter
for freeee?

lzozlzozlzzo

After a woman passes 25, whence she has generally been buttcocked numerous times and desouled, her courtship value is negative. It is the woman, who is now wired fiat bernanke cash and allowed to excel in fiat bernanke programs that drug up and dumb down boyz while deocntsructing da GREAT BOOKS 4 MENZ and creating far more debt than wealth while bankruping the West morally amnd moneetarily, who must pay the man so as to court him.

For a 25 year old multi-buttocked, desouled, bernankifed woman represents a huge risk to a man’s livelihood, his time, his conscience, his soul, his future earnings, and his general well-being. And the man must be compensated justly so as to have to court a woman over 25 who has been buttcocked and deousled and converted by the cenrta; bankerz into a vehicle of welath transfer lzozlz so dey could convert their masisve fiat debt into physical property by leveraging a woman’s sexuality for prviate profit gains while placing all teh risksz on good menz zlozzllz.

Dalrock: “ the vast majority of promiscuous women have sought to increasingly enlarge the concept of courtship. They have done this by both expanding the duration of courtship, as well as by expanding the definition of what level of sexual contact is appropriate during courtship. Freewheeling promiscuity isn’t seen by young women as an end unto itself, it is seen as a path to marriage. The sheer absurdity of what they are doing makes this hard to accept, but it is very clearly what they are doing, or more accurately what they intend to do.”

Cail Corishev: “I think understanding this is the key. Yes, crazy as it is, the 19-year-old girl having a drunken hookup in a strange dorm room really thinks she’s preparing for marriage 10 years down the road. She’s learning to be exciting in bed; she’s having experiences which will make her personality more interesting (sassy!); and she’s finding out what kind of man she likes.”

These two paragraphs really are the heart of this post. For better or (more likely) for worse, this is the environment we live in now. The main kind of male investment she gets from these interactions is validation and affirmation of her value as a woman (or more accurately, an SMP participant). But using promiscuity as a path to marriage is absurd simply because it just doesn’t work. The ”hookup or ONS leading to commitment” almost never works, the example of Susan Walsh notwithstanding.

As Cail points out the 19 year old girl thinks she’s preparing for marriage; but not just because of her experiences. She thinks the guy really cares about her because he accepted her offer of fast sex. In some instances she probably thinks this is going to lead to a lasting relationship. Most of the time, however, she’s wrong, and she has nothing to show for it beyond some experience and another notch.

“Don’t get married ever. There is no reason to. The system is corrupt, women are corrupt, just stay as far away from marriage as you can. There is no escape, there is no single one woman that can stay clear of this. They will use it, they are power hungry. Just don’t get married, that’s the only, the ONLY solution. All women a spinster, all men bachelors.

Thanks Opus for trying to answer the question. If I were to sum up your answer: they are pre-rejecting.

A story. There was once this girl who claimed virginity that rejected me who I became her beta-orbiter afterwards (i’ve never beta-orbited for a non-virgin, don’t understand that). So if my story were to be consistent with your theory, that would mean that she was actually a slut who was faking virginity. I’m not sure of that, but it’s a tempting thought for me. What I think is more plausable however, is that her church slut friends had it in for me. They’re hated for a good man compelled them to bad mouth me behind my back. And i entered the downward spiral of reduced confidence. Because of this situation, I had gotten very close to contemplating suicide. Because the few”good”women I had met had rejected me for bad boys.

Now I’d like to spend my time rejecting these sluts and decimating their egos. Only problem is, they don’t ever give me the chance to reject them.

If I pretended to be a man whore, they might give me the chance, but i find that act to be repulsive.

I have said on other threads that Matt and Earl are the same as the Destroyers who killed MRA activity in past years. But, it might help if I flesh out that comment.

Most of you young guys assume previous generations were losers who didn’t know they needed to organize to fight the evils being done to men. WRONG!!!

There were many organizations. Some very effective ones. They were on average destroyed after about 18 months by do-nothing people like Matt and Earl.

Some of you speak of the need to form organizations today. Hang it up. It will not happen now more than 30 years ago, and always it is the Destroyers who stop it. They cannot stop Dalrock because he is a one-man operation. They’d like to, but cannot do so. That is why the MRM has become so vigorous on-line.

Let me tell you my personal story, though at the same time identical things were happening all over the USA.

In 1984, our local Father’s Rights group had 35 members, and that summer, two of them committed suicide. One by gasoline, and of course the lying, scheming press refused to cover it.

I was asked to join them and help. I had been very active with anti-feminist op-eds, in fact was one of the most hated men in our small, rural city, and proud of it.

At first, I refused, but later changed my mind. There had been second wives in the group, and it quickly became obvious they kept the group from supplying any useful counseling to men. And, as is true today, the minute any man stands up to any woman, in an MRA group, all the White Knights attack him.

After I got rid of them, we got down to business. I started taking phone calls from men, and this continued for 10 years, up to 20 hours a week, free. I tried to obtain professional counselors, but none of the vicious fiends wanted to help men. So, I did what I had to do, including automatic suicide counseling for all men who called. We had no more suicides while I was there.

We restructured the group with a board of directors, and I was appointed as spokesman.

We also started activism, and frankly most ideas were mine. The same sort of activity that made me one of the best known and most hated men in town got us a bit of attention. Several times a year, our state president in the state Capitol would pick up his local newspaper and we’d be in there. He loved it.

After three good years a new member, an older man, joined. The board of directors made a terminal error, inviting him to join the board. He seemed to fit in. Let’s call him DF. A clue: D stands for dumb.

A few months later, a local feminist group wanted to start a supervised visitation program. You know, the evil male rapist pays $50 (1987 figures) for two hours supervised visitation and he can’t kiss or hug his little girl. They did not talk to us during development, but just before public introduction realized it would help if they could get an endorsement from the Father’s group.

Of course, we refused. Our concern was they would try to force all divorced fathers onto the program, as a routine matter. We sent them a letter with questions covering our doubts, and they did not, of course, answer.

DF insisted we were wrong, that the director was very sympathetic to men. Her own son was divorced and had visitation problems. We voted and he lost. I was instructed to write a refusal to endorse.

A few days later, he informed us he had contacted her and told her he was sure if she spoke to each director, they would go along with it. He also gave her all names and phone numbers.

We immediately called an emergency meeting to iron out this total mutiny. During this meeting, the usual response by MRM groups happened. In spite of his deliberately violating the decision of the board, and engaging in a personal attack on me, the other officers treated it as some sort of personal conflict between two men, and let me to fight my own battles, as it were.

So, how well would June 6, 1944 have gone if General Eisenhower had to personally fist fight every mutinous soldier? But, that is normal for men’s groups. DF should have been picked up and bodily thrown out of the meeting by the other officers as soon as it became apparent he was in clear violation of director rulings.

After an hour or two of DF screaming, “I WILL NOT BE CONTROLLED.” I offered the treasury and mailing list to anyone who wanted it. When all refused, I declared the group disbanded and sent the treasury to the State president.

The State President appointed me Counselor-at-large out of his office and I pretty much did what I had been doing, but no longer needed to ask the local directors for permission.

Three months later, the original director of the supervised visitation program resigned, as we expected. And, the usual man-hating feminist took over.

DF admitted before he died that he was in the wrong. But, like Humpty Dumpty, the group could not be put together again, just because DF realized he had made a mistake.

One Destroyer, single-handedly, destroyed in a few hours, what was for three years probably the most effective MRM group in the USA.

That was normal for the MRM in pre-Internet days. And, it is exactly what will happen to any organization today. Which is why the MGTOW program works so well. There is no central officer to attack or file false charges against. Just millions of men refusing to go along with the usual anti-male marriage/divorce program. Starving the beast.

Yet, we still have DF’s shouting, “You are f*****g it up. You are f*****g it up.”

And, the correct answer is still the same. The minute you realize a person is a Destroyer, ban him. Look at all the time and energy people spend here dealing with Earl and Matt’s nonsense.

If I could phrase my question differently: Why do women assume that a man who dates/sleeps around allot had been pre-selected rather than pre-rejected? And why are men who won’t date around not considered picky? A beta man who thinks he deserves a woman who isn’t a slut doesn’t sleep around and waits to find a good girl. But he’s not banging lots of chicks so women think he’s a loser? The alpha thug who doesn’t see himself worthy of having a virgin ten to be his bride so instead he settles for sleeping around with fugly sluts. That alpha thug is seen as picky when he sleeps around?

You can’t understand women…you can only predict how they will behave under certain variables.

I have no problem with you, Earl. You are a problem. You will not stop until you destroy Dalrock’s blog or are banned. And, comparing my comments on you to be a sin against God transcends all conceit. How dare you?

I am sorry to hear that you were messed around by the virgin. Some women are like that: what they are doing is prick-teasing (so much for women having the same sex drive as men – who ever heard of a prick-teasing man!); they demand commitment whilst giving nothing in return, and when one suggests that there should be some reciprocation, one is told that one does not own her, or that one is only after one thing, or that one does not respect her, or whatever. As Dalrock observes, so astutely, women have extended courtship in both length of time, and when it suits them, increased sexual behaviour. The man is in a tricky situation for if he offers no commitment he will receive no sex, [unless he is a true Alpha able to walk into a room and out fifteen minutes later with his prize] but if he gives commitment he can be messed around such that ultimately one loses confidence as a man, for men have a tendency to see failure as entire their fault, as if, women had no agency or will of their own. It is of course both unfair and highly manipulative of the woman; the woman basks in endless attention entirely on her own terms: men are the gate keepers of investment and you had given her the keys to the treasury, but I am not criticising you as it is a situation easy to get into, and without noticing that it is happening – as I have myself, and as all aspiring lovers do to varying extents. At its most limited level one comes across it in the guise of the Drinks Whore, who happily accepts your polite offer of a drink and then disappears. Men do not behave like that to each other for mutual drink buying is the ancient form of gift giving between men.

It is of course more than possible that your virgin was anything but! – but she does not have to be. We were merely discussing why sluts pre-emptively reject: your female friend was not pre-rejecting, but leading you on, and as you reveal, she wasn’t a slut. Playing hard to get and rejection are not the same thing. The girl who leads you on is not rejecting but implying that at some unspecified future time you may well be successful (provided you pass all the fitness tests); this is the same for any woman but with this difference that whereas normally the period of courtship – like a football match – has an optimum limit, in her case that length of time is extended to infinity, and the closer you get to her the further away she will feel (as with Achilles and the Tortoise – Zeno of Elea’s famous parable about the non-divisibility of time – although you appear to be advancing she is still the same proportionate distance away).

Earl; Matt; and others. Don’t just criticize me. Tell us what you have done in your life to HELP the cause. I wait with bated breath. The Destroyers never were effective activists whose activism was directed a different direction. It was always the do-nothings who killed organizations by personal attacks on those who did something.

Liberty, Family, and Masculinity: Now I’d like to spend my time rejecting these sluts and decimating their egos. Only problem is, they don’t ever give me the chance to reject them.

Sure they do; just go to your local gentleman’s club (aka nudie bar) when there is no cover charge and pretend you are infatuated with some of the entertainers. They’ll easily strike up a conversation and try to make you think they are interested in you. Remember, NEVER go to the stage and give them money and NEVER buy them a drink. In short, NEVER give them any money. Keep the conversation charade going as long as possible. Eventually, they are going to ask you to buy a dance, etc. – get money from you. Your response is to be vague and say something like “may be later” or “I’m not ready now” etc. The intent is to lead them on, waste their time, and give them hope they’ll get money. They will leave, but will come back and try again. Now you can really decimate their ego by again keeping the charade going. When they ask you again, this time say “yes” but you first have to go to the men’s room. Go to the men’s room and then leave the club.

but with this difference that whereas normally the period of courtship – like a football match – has an optimum limit, in her case that length of time is extended to infinity, and the closer you get to her the further away she will feel (as with Achilles and the Tortoise – Zeno of Elea’s famous parable about the non-divisibility of time – although you appear to be advancing she is still the same proportionate distance away).

Stoppage time, extra time, sudden-death extra time and finally penalty shoot outs, to be extended indefinitely…

Little miss feminist and her ilk…or these destroyers you speak of…and if you want to get down to the bottom of things, demons, have only one latch they can get to you with.

Your emotions…which are greatly out of control the more you hide or keep sins.

I’ve been judged and accused of many things…and when somebody says something there is usually a hint of truth to it. It doesn’t get to me because I realized these things the more times I went to confession. I unloaded the burden and received God’s mercy. Now when demons do their predictable attacks…what does it matter to me. God has it taken care of.

The minute you start getting insulting, defensive, out of whack…they are winning.

If I could phrase my question differently: Why do women assume that a man who dates/sleeps around allot had been pre-selected rather than pre-rejected? And why are men who won’t date around not considered picky? A beta man who thinks he deserves a woman who isn’t a slut doesn’t sleep around and waits to find a good girl.

You will not hear about this in church. Ever.

Women and men do not look at dating, courtship, and marriage in the same way. I know, I know, what else is new? But for Christians, this difference is even more varied. Your typical early-to-late-twenties something single Christian woman is dating around (and sleeping around) because although she is looking to get married, she is also looking for the best guy in bed. In their mind, you don’t buy the car until you’ve taken it out for the test drive. So of course, she is going to want to ride the cock carrosel looking for the largest and best performing cock she can marry. At age 26 or 28, she still believes that she decides who she is going to marry (that of course, one of these guys she f-cks is going to fall in love with her and give her a diamond) and hopefully it will be one of the best f-cks she’s had. Under no circumstances is she going to even acknowledge the short/ugly/fat guy her own age in church who isn’t sleeping around. In her mind, you are a virgin NOT because you choose to be but BECAUSE you are dweeb and no woman would ever have you. You are too short/fat/ugly so neither you (nor your feelings) count.

A few years go by, now she is 32. All the alpha cocks she’s f-cked, she hasn’t gotten any marriage offers yet and that 33 year old short/ugly/fat virgin boy in church (with the steady job, the house he bought, the business he started, his education, his non-existant criminal record, and his sexual disease free body) doesn’t look so bad. She wants babies, her clock is ticking. She wants to stop taking birth control. So she figures maybe she’ll take pity on virgin beta dweeb and marry him. After all, its just a starter marriage. She is not going to love him but he does give her what she needs and that is a place to live and someone who can pay off her credit cards and maybe give her a baby or two. But it is just the starter marriage until she finds someone she really loves. She doesn’t tell him her real motives but (of course) he jumps at the offer to get with her because…. no woman in church has really paid any attention to him.

Now she’s 38, alpha bad boy comes back into her life so (of course) she frivorces the beta guy (you) and lies to the judge about abuse and gets the restraining order (just the way her mom did with dad) and has the police remove you from your own home that you bought before you married her. You have to keep the bills paid (your responsibility) but she never really loved you so whatever. She moves the alpha male in and sees a lawyer. The lawyer tells her that if she wants to continue getting a check from you (both for her and the kids) she can’t remarry (and since he’s sending a big-@ss check to his ex-wife he can’t support her) so she’ll just live with him in your home and not get married. And the two of them will go to church on Sunday morning and no one will give them any grief because the women in church will know that she was unhaaaaappppy and that YOU (the beta male) were never really good enough for her anyway, just be glad you got to have 20 or maye 30 f-cks with her in your six years of marriage.

The root here that you are missing is that women assume that if a man can get laid, he will. If you aren’t getting laid it is NEVER because you are waiting for marriage. It is INSTEAD because you are a LOSER and no woman would have you because you were born to short/ugly/fat and well, you suck. There you go. Sorry if that is hurtful but it is what it is….

“The root here that you are missing is that women assume that if a man can get laid, he will. If you aren’t getting laid it is NEVER because you are waiting for marriage. It is INSTEAD because you are a LOSER and no woman would have you because you were born to short/ugly/fat and well, you suck. There you go. Sorry if that is hurtful but it is what it is….”

Also they assume because it is so easy for them…it must be easy for men as well. With birth control and alcohol it actually is pretty easy for a man to get laid if he wants to (or if he is willing to stomach a few fuglies)

The reality I’ve encountered is even in my blue pill days it would have been easy for me to get laid. My conscience always took over when things started to get hot and heavy. I’m glad it did.

It is actually harder to stay a virgin if you are a guy who does encounter women frequently.

“Liberty, Family, and Masculinity says:
August 26, 2013 at 11:07 am
Now I’d like to spend my time rejecting these sluts and decimating their egos. Only problem is, they don’t ever give me the chance to reject them.

If I pretended to be a man whore, they might give me the chance, but i find that act to be repulsive.”

Don’t. You are only looking to take revenge, and that is a virulent poison to yourself. Focus on becoming a better man; the best man you can be. Attend Church to better yourself as a Christian and as a Man, not to hurt those who have hurt you. That desire will result in enslaving yourself to the sluts you hate.

Romans 12:19 (NASB)
19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.

Look, IBB is right here. Women don’t care two hoots about you as a human being. Not if you’re Alpha and not if you’re Beta or Gamma or Omega. Not even if you’re a Sigma. Women only care about what you can provide them with. Whether it’s status, a good fuck, money, that’s all you are to them. An empty vessel that provides her with benefits and if the benefits stop coming, well then, time to upgrade!

Truth of the matter is this. If you’re a gamma or omega, like myself, you are better off not thinking or dreaming about marriage. Even if you do get married, you deep down know that she doesn’t love you or care about you. You are nothing, just a means to an end. And boy if she doesn’t need that good Alpha fuck she had back when. But, hey ho, she needs the cash and you’ll do for the meantime.

@At 10:08 pm ANorthernObserver said:
You obviously have never been ostracized before – being intentionally shunned is like a knife in the heart that’s twisted at regular intervals with no indication of care or concern on the part of the people with power to take the knife away. I would barely wish it on my worst enemy…

There is a quick solution, if a wrongdoer will accept it – repentence. Wrongdoers who suffer shunning long-term have only themselves to blame.

Look, IBB is right here. Women don’t care two hoots about you as a human being.

Most women don’t. There are very-very few women that do care. And the likelihood of you running into those type of women (that would be willing to marry a gamma-omega like FH) is next to nil. SO FH is doing what he must to protect himself, legally. He is just playing the odds. I can’t say I blame him.

I get why FH feels the way he does about women. And I would agree about all the stuff he says when it comes to marriage and the risks.

I’m trying to get why he is boxing himself into some greek letter creation.

I’m an epsilon. So that guarantees me a unicorn…but I’m not allowed to have my own leprechaun.

Truthfully I think FH does want to get married or at least have female companionship…but he is mad the way the world and odds have been stacked against him. My advice…and I did this myself…get rid of the anger. It does you no good. Improve yourself.

Go ahead and talk to women…enjoy their company. So you are a means to an end to them…you might as well have a good time. Nobody is saying marry the first gal who you interact well with.

Go ahead and talk to women…enjoy their company. So you are a means to an end to them…you might as well have a good time. Nobody is saying marry the first gal who you interact well with.

FH does NOT want to talk to women. He does NOT enjoy their company. He is bitter, frustrated, and angry at the gender that has written him off entirely as immature and worthless. He blames feminism for that. He may or may not be angry at the alpha males because he is not one of them but that doesn’t matter. There is ZERO CHANCE FH will enjoy the company of women. Spending time with them (while they are out with their boyfriends just hanging with him because they feel sorry for him) is a waste of his time.

FH has friends. He doesn’t want to be friends with women. He gains nothing from interacting with them.

@Liberty, Family, and Masculinity said: “Now I’d like to spend my time rejecting these sluts and decimating their egos. Only problem is, they don’t ever give me the chance to reject them.”

Next them and move on.

When I was working my way through school, I took a job selling door to door. One woman invited me into her home, and we spent the next hour discussing the product and drinking tea. At the end of which she said “I’m was never really interested in buying this, but you’re such pleasant company I though chatting a while with you would be fun.” She then looked at me and said “why don’t you stay a little longer and I’ll make us a snack.”

I managed to contain myself (as in not blow a gasket in her living room) and left, but boy was I mad as hell. That hour of “chat time” represented real money not in my pocket, as I could have knocked on 20-30 doors in that time, and probably closed at least one sale. She didn’t seem to even have a clue what she had done (or if she did, she didn’t care).

I learned a hard sales lesson that day: don’t waste time on people who are NOT your customers.

Think of yourself as a salesman and the product you are selling is you. Evaluate your potential customer (the girl) quickly, and if there isn’t some interest there, move on to the next girl. Even if you think there is initial interest, the moment you detect it has gone away move on. Every day you spend with girl #1 is a day you aren’t spending with girl #2, 3, 4, or 5, and if girl #5 is your Miss Right, then the time you spend with any of the previous girls is wasted time. If you wast too much time with them, you may never even get to girl #5, and miss out on Miss Right.

Quit taking it personally; quit worrying about getting back at them–they aren’t worth wasting your time on (wasting your time that could be used on the next girl). Simply next them and move on.

What is your agenda; what is your goal? If your goal is to meet a girl and have a long term relationship that leads to marriage, then every girl that has a different agenda is an OBSTACLE to you reaching your goal. They may not realize it (or they may not care). It doesn’t matter, they are an obstacle. Next them and move on.

“FH does NOT want to talk to women. He does NOT enjoy their company. He is bitter, frustrated, and angry at the gender that has written him off entirely as immature and worthless.”

And you just described earl around a year ago.

What changed…I got rid of the anger in myself and accepted things the way they are. Plus most women I interact with aren’t quick to find ways to piss me off. I found if you are actually a calm and gentle person…women for some reason pick up that vibe and go with it. Like they follow you or something.

I know I am annoying…I’m trying to help people improve their dark, dismal lives. But they would rather stay in it where it is safe. Hatred is like a drug…because you can blame any one of the millions of boogeymen keeping your life down.

I’ve never been divorced…I’ve never even really been scared too much by women in my experiences other than normal rejection. I did everything I could to keep lust out of it…and that is probably why I don’t have many dark tales of horror to spill. I don’t doubt that women can unleash all sorts of evil because I know of others in my life that have had this happen to them. But a common occurance was that the men in the picture…weren’t all that great of people themselves either.

It takes whatever greek letter of great significance to make the necessary changes and risks…to get out of a dark dismal life.

My plan has very little, if anything, to do with women. I’m talking about your insides. FH is just another Mark Minter to me IMHO. He rails against women while secretly hoping one of them notices him. Heck, Minter was taken to the cleaners in his story and he’s going after a divorced, single mother.

Besides I said talk to women…I wasn’t even telling him to get their number or go out with them. Talking with them last I checked…is still free.

And you’re just another bloviating know-it-all preacher boy telling me that I’m the problem. You see, the thing that really gets me is that you acknowledge that I’m correct in my reasoning of the risks of marriage but then go on to state that if I simply remain calm women will somehow follow me. It’s absurd. Do you get that? Women don’t care an inkling about men like me because we are ugly. We don’t exist but to be made fun of.

I actually get it now. It is me, quite simply because I am not attractive. And there isn’t a damn thing I can do about that at all. And by God, I am not going to put myself into the situation where I think I stand a chance with any women. I am just a money machine to them. Get the moola from me and the butthexual vacation from Mr Alpha.

Besides I started this annoying tone…on ROK. I had my insults there from PUAs. Roosh didn’t like my annoying tone for telling the truth about him…so he banned me. I figured I would start with the PUAs since they are part of the problem as well. For a bunch of supposed greek letters of great significance…I could probe their insecurities pretty well by speaking the truth. If I could do it as just some common dude with no intent to destroy their heart, but to help them…I’m sure a female could do it much better although it would be to rip out that heart.

Krauser has shown the same insecurities…Rollo, etc. They all have them. You can’t kill the lesser greek letter no matter how much you think you can.

Then moving on to a more Christian website…I’m getting the same type of attacks. At least you guys have stayed away from the predictable virgin insults.

Guys have an anger and insecurity problem. That’s why women have a field day with your heart. The best way to rid yourself of both…is forgiveness of your sins.

“You see, the thing that really gets me is that you acknowledge that I’m correct in my reasoning of the risks of marriage but then go on to state that if I simply remain calm women will somehow follow me. It’s absurd. Do you get that?”

Have you ever tried it?

It’s hard to stay calm if that is all you ever think in your head.

I even mentioned I had those similar angry thoughts in my head. Didn’t do me a bit of good.

It was taking care of the reason behind the angry thoughts and then accepting forgiveness that did.

“Women don’t care an inkling about men like me because we are ugly. We don’t exist but to be made fun of. ”

And that’s the other thing…if you really didn’t want anything to do with women…why do you place so much importance on what they think about you? That’s insecurity 101.

If you don’t want to get married or have female interaction…then let them think whatever they want to think. Live your life on your terms and don’t let whatever thoughts they may have get in the way.

If anything talk with guys you know and let them address what they think about you. My dad, brother, good male friends…gave me more truth about what they thought of me than any chick ever did. Here’s the good news…while some of it wasn’t pleasant…I found out that I had more to offer people than even I knew. It was like they saw something.

Do you really think I go on tirades about women while working and interacting with people? Honestly? Of course I am calm while around other people. Listen, until you can prove that you can make women follow and submit to you and get one to actually marry you, have your children and submit to you in all things and then to teach your lessons to other men, your entire attempts to shame gamma men, to keep on playing the useless game that is life these days, will fall on deaf ears.

I’ve lived on this planet for almost 28 years. I have asked women out, I have kept myself fit and thin. I’ve played rugby for the better half of most of my life. It has not helped in the slightest. The unattractive qualities are things I cannot change. Women simply don’t want me around other than to make fun of or to pay their bills.

And that’s the other thing…if you really didn’t want anything to do with women…

Who said I wasn’t insecure? I’m a gamma for heaven’s sake. I didn’t say I didn’t want anything to do with women either, they simply don’t want anything to do with me other than to use me. I’m the one who always wanted to have a marriage and to actually love a woman. Do you actually read or do you just assign ‘Mark Minter’ status to anyone who doesn’t fall and worship at womens’ collective feet?

Do you actually read or do you just assign ‘Mark Minter’ status to anyone who doesn’t fall and worship at womens’ collective feet?

He isn’t getting it FH.

Earl, one last time, FH is not his own worst enemy. He was born short/fat/ugly one of those three (I don’t know which one) and the kind of women he wants will not give him the time of day. So FH is GHOW.

FH is not remotely interested in talking to women who don’t look at him as anything other than nice beta boy. He does not want to talk to them. He does not want to be friends with them. There is NOTHING that women offer to him that they would willingly give him, so he is done with them.

End of file.

Do NOT tell FH again the things he is doing wrong. Do NOT offer any more advice. Just stop. Back away from the computer, resist the urge. If you feel you have to type something to FH say “I’m sorry, that really sucks.” That will be fine. But do not tell him anymore about things he can do differently.

This may have been mentioned in the above 188 comments, but the sexual power of women at any age is over all men on the spectrum. Hence, the power of peak women is over almost all men. The men at their peak (38ish) is only over the women who have hit the wall or the few that are aware of the wall and cannot seem to convince themselves that it aint really a wall…and even if it is…it is a wall of tissue paper…can’t possible damage dis grrrrrrrl! Those who cannot convince/fool themselves are the exact type of women who the men to the right of the intersection have power over. The 38 year old men are only at their peak because by this age their resources have reached an optimal level. The resources are likely to rise, but by 38, men have acquired enough material things (finer cars, house with a working kitchen, bed that aint a mattress on the floor, toilet that is actually screwed down) that in light of the quickly diminishing attention she is getting, forces the old girl to deceptively roll back the vajay odometer and slap a new coat of paint on the exterior (maybe he wont notice the stains all over the interior) and make a serious run at the poor chap.

You are wrong on that account…which I why I’m not going to stop. If anything you are just perpetuting his attitude. Perhaps you should take a break from the computer if the things I say sound scary.

Living with that attitude is making him his own worst enemy. I’ve lived with it…and I got rid of it. Now all of a sudden things are better…and more people seem to have a problem with it. I’m trying to help.

Who gave FH the label…gamma? Was it FH…was it some dude who created some hierarchy scale that is based off how women react to you?

I’ve lived on this planet for almost 28 years. I have asked women out, I have kept myself fit and thin.

Let me help.

Forget about talking to women in church. Forget about all the women you know. They know you and don’t want anything to do with you, they feel sorry for you. You need a new group of women to give yourself some confidence, women who will not feel sorry for you.

Do you have a vacation coming up? Can you take a week off of work? If you can may I make a suggestion?

I was listening to Esther chapter 1 this morning in which Vashti the queen is banished because she refused to obey her husband, King Ahasuerus. The reason for her banishment that the king’s advisers advised was because it would send a message to other women to despise their husbands.

Correct me if I am wrong here….but,doesn’t the New Testament say…”confess your sins to no man”….and …”call no man Father”……???…….Just asking as you are Roman Catholic. I cannot quote the biblical verses verbatim or can I remember them precisely…….but,I have heard this before and being Orthodox Jewish they mean nothing to me…..but,I know I have read these “passages” in the New Testament and have had a Evangelical Pastor confirm them to me via NT scripture.

$200 for 5 days if you take a gamma buddy (recommended.) If you want a cabin all to yourself, $400 as you’ll have to pay double the rate, but who cares? $400? It’s a steal.

Just go to HR, get your week off in early September. Then the Thursday night before, pack your bags, bring TWO suits, (have them pressed) and a sport coat. Throw them in the car and drive to Ft Lauderdale or Tampa. Just get in the car, and go. Get to Florida for your Saturday sailing.

Get on the ship. Go directly to the formal dining room. Speak to the matre-de. Tell him you want to sit at the singles table. He will smile and put you at a large table and it will be 80% women. (You are 27, they will all be 30-40, semi-attractive, and divorced.)

If you are thin (just short and/or ugly) you’ll still get laid if you want to be laid. If you don’t, they are going to try and LAY you. All the numbers will be in your favor. It will be 5 to 1 single women to single men. Got get your odds. Moreover, on a cruise women are looking for love.

You need a confidence boost. Here is a way you can get it for a few hundred dollars. Hang with these women. Do NOT fall in love with them. Just hang with them. After dinner, you hang with them at the dance clubs. Dance with this women. Do NOT buy them drinks (they will buy their own) but DO hang with them. You are 27? They will be ALL OVER YOU like flies on shit. I wouldn’t steer you wrong.

John 20:22-23..is also where Jesus established confession through the apostles. They passed down the tradition to the priests today. I rather prefer talking with another wiser man than me about my sins who is also bound by the Church to not reveal those sins to anyone.

IBB, I think I should tell you that I’m South African and I live in Cape Town. However, we do have cruises from Durban to Mozambique and other Indian Ocean islands. I’m taking a long break come the end of this year; and it’s summer here during that time (winter now of course) so I’ll see what I can do.

Women and men do not look at dating, courtship, and marriage in the same way. I know, I know, what else is new? But for Christians, this difference is even more varied. Your typical early-to-late-twenties something single Christian woman is dating around (and sleeping around) because although she is looking to get married, she is also looking for the best guy in bed. In their mind, you don’t buy the car until you’ve taken it out for the test drive. So of course, she is going to want to ride the cock carrosel looking for the largest and best performing cock she can marry. At age 26 or 28, she still believes that she decides who she is going to marry (that of course, one of these guys she f-cks is going to fall in love with her and give her a diamond) and hopefully it will be one of the best f-cks she’s had. Under no circumstances is she going to even acknowledge the short/ugly/fat guy her own age in church who isn’t sleeping around. In her mind, you are a virgin NOT because you choose to be but BECAUSE you are dweeb and no woman would ever have you. You are too short/fat/ugly so neither you (nor your feelings) count.

A few years go by, now she is 32. All the alpha cocks she’s f-cked, she hasn’t gotten any marriage offers yet and that 33 year old short/ugly/fat virgin boy in church (with the steady job, the house he bought, the business he started, his education, his non-existant criminal record, and his sexual disease free body) doesn’t look so bad. She wants babies, her clock is ticking. She wants to stop taking birth control. So she figures maybe she’ll take pity on virgin beta dweeb and marry him. After all, its just a starter marriage. She is not going to love him but he does give her what she needs and that is a place to live and someone who can pay off her credit cards and maybe give her a baby or two. But it is just the starter marriage until she finds someone she really loves. She doesn’t tell him her real motives but (of course) he jumps at the offer to get with her because…. no woman in church has really paid any attention to him.

Now she’s 38, alpha bad boy comes back into her life so (of course) she frivorces the beta guy (you) and lies to the judge about abuse and gets the restraining order (just the way her mom did with dad) and has the police remove you from your own home that you bought before you married her. You have to keep the bills paid (your responsibility) but she never really loved you so whatever. She moves the alpha male in and sees a lawyer. The lawyer tells her that if she wants to continue getting a check from you (both for her and the kids) she can’t remarry (and since he’s sending a big-@ss check to his ex-wife he can’t support her) so she’ll just live with him in your home and not get married. And the two of them will go to church on Sunday morning and no one will give them any grief because the women in church will know that she was unhaaaaappppy and that YOU (the beta male) were never really good enough for her anyway, just be glad you got to have 20 or maye 30 f-cks with her in your six years of marriage.

“”The root here that you are missing is that women assume that if a man can get laid, he will. If you aren’t getting laid it is NEVER because you are waiting for marriage. It is INSTEAD because you are a LOSER and no woman would have you because you were born to short/ugly/fat and well, you suck. There you go. Sorry if that is hurtful but it is what it is….””

Whoaaaaa!…………best post on this Blog!……You hit the nail on the head with this one my friend. Apologies to Dalrock……just want to make sure that every man here reads this post again!…..BRAVO! my friend!……Great Insight!

And you seem to playing them very well!……..I have my own hand of cards that God dealt me…..as do IBB,Earl,Opus etc….and even Dalrock!……but,keep your chin up and your head down…..and the world will turn for you….it always does!

I was born with a speech impediment, combine that with a slew of poor speaking habits and I had a terrible speaking voice–terrible as in when I made a presentation in school there would be giggles from the class terrible. I understand that sometimes you are born with an attribute that seems not only difficult, but impossible to overcome.

Of course, it didn’t help that I was by nature not only shy, but introverted. My social interactions were a disaster. Throw on top of it that I got very little guidance from my parents, and it’s fair to say my early life was a mess. At 28 people would have marked me down as one of life’s also rans, but in the following quarter century I’ve done well–damn well.

Some people are late bloomers. I was one, and you may want to consider that you may be one also.

Life occurs in phases. The attributes and skills that make a man successful in his youth are very different than the ones that make him successful the other phases of his life. I found that the struggles I faced early in life helped me later in life in unexpected ways (particularly my speech impediment, which required me learning to be calm to the point of placidity under stress).

Life lasts a long, long time. What your life will look like at 50, and the things you think are important at 50, will be very different than they are today. So different that you literally can’t imagine it at your age.

Thirty is an important milestone for a man. I admit when I hit 30 I thought “is this it; is this all I have to look forward to in life?” It wasn’t, because I didn’t realize I was a late bloomer, and my best years were still ahead.

And, you know what happens when I meet those people who I thought had it all figured out when I was young? I say “you look great” and think “what the hell happened to you?”

“The sheer absurdity of what they are doing makes this hard to accept, but it is very clearly what they are doing, or more accurately what they intend to do.”

The outside observer can easily spot what people do, but cannot know what they believe they are doing. Call the latter the rationalization hamster if you want to.

In stages:

Riding the cock carousel = assessing potential marriage partnersLeaving the carousel = at last I have found Mr Right and I am ready to settle down (and half of women really do settle down, i.e. do not go on to divorce their husbands)Returning to the carousel after completing my family and putting hubby on the hook for alimony and child support = we grew apart; he became boring and/or abusive

The entire process:

A hypergamous pursuit of alpha fucks and beta bucks = a good man is hard to find

An earlier post described the attempt to explain modern dating to a female audience, and how the Manosphere view is greeted with pure contempt. I suspect that many women who are in the grip of their biological desires genuinely believe the feminine description of each life stage – e.g. when they marry they really think it will be for life, and have no idea that 8 years later their own sexual desire will be telling them to pick up badboys in bars once again.

The hamster rationalizes things in terms of a woman’s feelings in the moment – not in terms of a pattern of behavior.

“Yet despite the fact that marriage trends are moving in the wrong direction, the vast majority of women in the US still do manage to marry.”

It is important to note that the 35-year-old who laments “where have all the good men gone?” is a small minority – albeit a noisy one, because she is often a literate professional. Never mind her N – it is almost impossible to wife these women up, because they are by definition the ones who are most picky, and have the most unrealistic expectations.

“Women whose divorces are final and aren’t on a verifiable track to remarriage are seen as desperate, and because of this are seen as a risk to other womens’ marriages.”

And with good reason. Take a look at a dating site like “Plenty of Fish”. Most women on the site have discovered the “Must/Must not” settings, but do not set “Must not be married” – unless they are young, have no children, and want to have children.

Take a look at a dating site like “Plenty of Fish”. Most women on the site have discovered the “Must/Must not” settings, but do not set “Must not be married” – unless they are young, have no children, and want to have children.

“”Quit taking it personally; quit worrying about getting back at them–they aren’t worth wasting your time on (wasting your time that could be used on the next girl). Simply next them and move on.””

I remember back when I was about 22…23 era and I was taking “self-help”…..”sales”….courses(read all the books…Robbins…Zigler….Waitley(sp)….etc..etc….for my own personal growth. I think it was Zig Zigler who had the saying……”SW,SW,SW…..NEXT”……which in the sales world meant…..”Some will……Some won’t……..SO WHAT!…………..NEXT!”””………This also applies to your comment…..and you 100% on the money!

“”Do it. Give yourself an edge. On a cruise ship YOU HAVE AN EDGE. Single women and divorced women love that sh-t. Go where they are (where other single guys AREN’T.) Play the odds.””

Agreed!………get the right cruise and you are set!…..Somewhere else I might suggest. Costa Rica….get into the right place and there will be 4(Canadian Women) per man….all suffering from debilitating ailment…… CSS(Canadian Secretary Syndrome).

Dalrock’s post is (as usual) excellent. But I don’t think we are asking the right question. The question we should be asking ourselves is this: how do we change public opinion in our churches such that this type of frivorcing behavior isn’t tolerated? I haven’t seen one idea on that one yet and until we get there, all of this is just talk.

1) Form small, roving cells of faithful believers, learn Jesus’ and Solomon’s skill of manipulating fallen human behavior to good ends (what Proverbs calls Understanding, and containing what those around hereabouts call Game), and use it as a team effort to transform the church.

This has been tried and does work. There’s a relevant post on Sunshine Mary’s place.

2) Find a good wife who will submit, even if you have to look outside the country or actively mold one (see Sarah’s Daughter’s blog to see how this works). Make lots of babies and train them to be ninjas who will cohere with the truth and spread it like an infection. Equip them to be the foundation of the next civilization when this one peters out.

3) Some pastors do hold to truth. Some people do not walk away. A tiny church can serve as an anchor point.

The key in all of these things is it has to be a long-term plan. It’s not going to bear fruit right away.

Show me a successful, Hellfire and Brimstone, Fundamentalist King James Bible preaching Pastor, and I’ll show you a Pastor looking for work. If he wants to preach like he should (like everyone at Dalrock’s forum wants him to) and he better be making a living doing something else because Cail, there just isn’t enough of people like you and I in one area that would go to his church. We are drastically outnumbered, and we growing fewer.

First, your standard here is denominationally skewed. Cail’s church does not believe Hellfire and Brimstone, KJVism is an accurate reading of the Bible. Nor does mine.

Lest schismatically, however, last I checked the purpose of the Church is not to grow (I believe 1st Corinthians states that the increase is God’s responsibility), but rather to cling to truth in the face of all comers. The shrinking = failure assumption is importing the values of Capitalism into the church (and I’m all about Capitalism, as an economic system. But it is not meant to be a spiritual metric).

Moreover, in my own church, the super-liberal faction that split off, while starting larger, is dying fast. My own segment is slowly growing here, and exploding in Africa (and it may be that this civilization is doomed, but another is rising elsewhere. Earthly kingdoms do not last forever).

At present, my plan is to become that pastor we’re all looking for (save for our doctrinal differences, which are not the matter at hand). It may not happen, but if it does, we shall see if I end up as an M.Div. flipping burgers or not. Even if so, it’s still a hill worth dying on.

Here in the Midwest, there are growing churches, rapidly growing, and they all have one thing in common, they are fundamentalist full gospel churches. The empty churches are the traditional “main line” sorts (Lutheran, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian).

Nng. My ‘main line’ church is doing fine. But it cleaves to truth, even if all of the pastors I’ve come across are apologetic about it. But my last pastor was fond of pointing out that however much we think the Baptists have screwy theology, they are the absolute best at sticking to their guns, and they are being rewarded for it.

Churches started emptying out in the 1970s specifically BECAUSE the country was becoming more feminized. And the churches hadn’t caught on yet.

You couldn’t be more wrong on the last sentence. I don’t doubt that there were some small conservative churches that bucked the trend, but in most cases the churches led the charge of modernism. The Anglicans approved of artificial birth control way back in 1930, and most Protestant churches fell into line on that before anyone had heard the word “feminism.” The Catholic seminaries started turning homosexual already in the 1950s because there were already so many liberal nuns running the vocations offices by then. (Apparently they decided if they couldn’t be priests, they’d try to keep real men out of the job too.) Vatican II, which liberalized some things and was incorrectly interpreted to mean liberalizing everything else, was in 1962, and most of the other radical changes that survive today occurred by 1969.

Speaking of the Catholic Church specifically, those changes happened because attendance was booming so much that the bishops basically thought they could do no wrong, and opened themselves up to “the smoke of Satan” entering the Church, as Pope Paul VI described the resulting liturgical abuse years later. It all came from the clergy and religious; the people in the pews mostly had no idea what was going on, and didn’t start leaving in droves until afterwards.

By the way, consider this: if it’s all about the money, why are so many churches encouraging divorce? If a couple in your church divorces, at least one of them is likely to leave, and it’s unlikely that the other will be able to continue contributing as much as they did together. If there’s shared custody, the kids may not be there every Sunday anymore, and there’s a good chance you’ll lose them for the next generation. If it were all about butts in the seats and money in the basket, churches would do everything possible to keep couples together — and speak loudly against birth control too, by the way.

By the way, consider this: if it’s all about the money, why are so many churches encouraging divorce? If a couple in your church divorces, at least one of them is likely to leave, and it’s unlikely that the other will be able to continue contributing as much as they did together.

Because the divorcing party doesn’t give a damn what their church thinks. It’s over, done. They are unhappy and they want out of their marriage. Pure and simple, they are getting out. And the church can either embrace that (reluctantly) and hopefully,catch one of the divorcing members and try and keep their donations coming in (even if it is reduced) or the church can condem that behavior and the church will probably get nothing. They just lose both spouses.

It is ALL about butts in the seats and money in the basket. Money pays for the lights, the mortgage, the Pastor. Principles do not.

Keeping your integrity is the right thing to do, the correct thing. But integrity has a cost. The cost born by churchs who do not accept frivorce, fewer members and far less money.

Show me a successful, Hellfire and Brimstone, Fundamentalist King James Bible preaching Pastor, and I’ll show you a Pastor looking for work. If he wants to preach like he should (like everyone at Dalrock’s forum wants him to) and he better be making a living doing something else because Cail, there just isn’t enough of people like you and I in one area that would go to his church. We are drastically outnumbered, and we growing fewer.

Nonsense. I currently attend a Catholic Latin Mass parish where the preaching is always solidly traditional. We’re small, but we’re growing, because we’re the only parish in town where large families aren’t treated like an embarrassment. We also have a much higher priest/parishioner ratio than the others, because the traditional priestly orders are full and growing, unlike the diocesan vocations that shrank for 40 years. We’re also debt-free, despite having small numbers and some pretty large repair expenses, because the average contribution is far higher than at any other parish I’ve ever attended — and we’re not a rich bunch, either.

Some of my friends spent 40 years wandering in the wilderness, trying to find a parish that would give them some semblance of traditionalism, but were continually turned away. Some even offered to pay the cost of adding another Mass, so the pastor wouldn’t have to worry about offending his modernist parishioners and possibly losing their money; he could keep the two groups separate and collect from both. No dice. Some drove hours every week to a suitable Mass for years, spending a lot on gas that could have gone to a local parish that would make room for them.

We’re proof that the money is there to support traditional teaching and a no-nonsense adherence to doctrine. The money always was there, but the clergy and parish councils were caught up in the rush of modernism, and you literally couldn’t buy tradition until Pope Benedict told the bishops to allow it in 2007. It wasn’t virtually banned from 1969-2007 for monetary reasons, but for ideological (heretical) ones.

I just thought of another reason why the church wont condem frivorce, they don’t want to alienate all the already frivorced members sitting in the pews. If the Pastor condemns it with Scripture (as he should) then the feminist harpies that see no-dault-divorce as the ultimate threat-point to save them from being beaten to death by men, they will just leave the church and take their money with them. Remember the cardinal virtue here, women/wives pick the church. The Pastor must appeal to them the way the Pastor appealed to women in the Joe-of-Jackson situation. This is political.

@IBB:
You are fixated on money and tying it to “successful” churches. A church is is a building. God’s Church is not a building.

One of my family members left her church of over 60 years becasuse they began ordaining gay and lesbian pastors, against the Scriptures (among other things). Her new church is half a quonset hut with folding chairs and a podium. They are a traditional church that hews to the Scriptures.

I’ll leave it to you to as an exercise to figure out which one might be closer to being “God’s Church”.

@IBB: “The Pastor must appeal to them the way the Pastor appealed to women in the Joe-of-Jackson situation. This is political.”

Then fight it — Joe-of-Jackson did, and he appears to be winning, with God’s grace. You appear to be whining. That is not Alpha (as you claim to be). What will you do to fight it if this disturbs you and goes against what you believe?

@Cail Corishev said:”I think understanding this is the key. Yes, crazy as it is, the 19-year-old girl having a drunken hookup in a strange dorm room really thinks she’s preparing for marriage 10 years down the road. She’s learning to be exciting in bed; she’s having experiences which will make her personality more interesting (sassy!); and she’s finding out what kind of man she likes.”

We’re failing to understand what she means by marriage. To the typical man, it’s that 30 plus year period that comes AFTER the wedding ceremony. To modern women, it’s the last step in the romance-novel style courtship scenario.

1) There is an untamed wild alpha man.
2) He is attracted to the woman’s snowflake-specialness.
3) She uses her magic-vagina to tame this wild man.
4) They get married (and he commits his life to her).

Under that scenario, learning to become exciting in bed IS preparing her for marriage, because marriage defined as nothing more than getting a man’s commitment. She hasn’t given any thought to the 30 years after the ceremony; they are just fuzzy, cloudy, formless, happily-ever-after.

I learned a hard sales lesson that day: don’t waste time on people who are NOT your customers. Think of yourself as a salesman and the product you are selling is you. Evaluate your potential customer (the girl) quickly, and if there isn’t some interest there, move on to the next girl. Even if you think there is initial interest, the moment you detect it has gone away move on. Every day you spend with girl #1 is a day you aren’t spending with girl #2, 3, 4, or 5, and if girl #5 is your Miss Right, then the time you spend with any of the previous girls is wasted time. If you wast too much time with them, you may never even get to girl #5, and miss out on Miss Right.

Good in theory, but lacks practical application. You make it sound like a buffet restaurant, but just where is this pool of available girls located that LFM (or anyone else for that matter) can dip into and select a girl to try out? Church, bars, dating sites – are good places if you like rejection.

Rejection? What’s wrong with rejection. Even the best “players” get rejected. If you’re not getting rejected (a lot) you aren’t trying often enough.

Reggie Jackson struck out more times than he got base hits. Babe Ruth lead the league in strikeouts in 5 different seasons. Both these strikeout kings are in the baseball hall of fame.

Learning to handle rejection is part of life. Everyone fails, everyone gets rejected. There’s no place you can go and not get rejected, because rejection and failure are part of life. The question isn’t will you get rejected, but what will you do when you are rejected.

My experience has been that Option #3 (not needing male investment now that she is older) is actually a very strong motivating factor for females – perhaps the #1 factor. The main biological urge for females is to have children. Although it is preferable to have a committed male, this is secondary in modern society (just look at the escalating out-of-wedlock births statistics) – I agree this is not necessarily a good thing. Divorce/widowhood can be very empowering. There is no longer a man to take care of; you are free. Many of these women truly have no desire for a male partner. If they are widows, this is a tribute to their husbands. A common example is a co-worker of mine whose husband died of cancer. She says that no other man could replace him; she considers herself still married to him – her college sweetheart and the father of her college-aged children. She is economically provided for and would not want “to take care of another man” – a common theme among women. The cooking, cleaning, childbearing, working outside of the home and other demands that most men make on their wives tends to be overlooked in blogs like this one – in favor of female-bashing/shaming.

To all those telling me not to get “revenge”. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said i wanted to reject them and decimate their ego. nothing more than that. When a man is rejected, we don’t call the rejecting woman “mean” or “angry” or “revengeful”.

And allot of men here have internalized the feminist belief that a man who is a virgin is so involuntary. My refraining from fornication had always been out of love for other men. I honored God by not desecrating what belonged too other men. The few girlfriends i’ve had wanted to have sex with me. I wouldn’t.
My question has not been answered.

@mark
Completely unhelpful rambling. Why would i “jump at the chance” to marry those sluts. I decided at an early age that celibacy before marriage is what i wanted in a wife. And i wanted other men to have that too. That’s why i didn’t sleep around.

When i’ve acted like a horn dog, women responded favorably. But as i already said, i don’t want to play that act.

So my unanswered question is still: “why do church girls not understand that virgin men could act like horndogs if they wanted to?”

Rejection? What’s wrong with rejection. Even the best “players” get rejected. If you’re not getting rejected (a lot) you aren’t trying often enough. Learning to handle rejection is part of life. Everyone fails, everyone gets rejected. There’s no place you can go and not get rejected, because rejection and failure are part of life. The question isn’t will you get rejected, but what will you do when you are rejected.

Handling rejection is not the problem. The question is what’s causing the rejection. The answer is the women are mentally, emotionally screwed up. Your advice seems to be keep trying, but that’s the definition of insanity. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

“So my unanswered question is still: “why do church girls not understand that virgin men could act like horndogs if they wanted to?””

So I’m assuming you’re not married? To take a stab at an answer to your question, I’d say because church girls have a huge blind spot. This isn’t just church girls who don’t see this. It’s just typical human behavior that places people in boxes. I know as a shy person, this happens to me repeatedly. People assume you have nothing to say, or that you don’t talk or something stupid like that. And the minute you start talking people are shocked. Stupidest thing ever. Just because someone isn’t talking doesn’t mean they don’t have something meaningful to contribute. It could be that they talk a lot, it’s just everyone else talks over them. So in your case, it’s not that you don’t know how to act like a horndog, you just choose not to. I know it’s probably not what you want to hear and it sounds trite, but it’s because you haven’t met the right woman yet who appreciates and values you.

The peculiar power of women derives from her special-purpose body (and in a social sense from those of her sisters).

Furthermore, very generally speaking men have power in the world from the large variety of things they can do in the world; while women have power in the world from what they can convince men to do in the world. Man’s stewardship of Creation is direct; Woman’s is indirect, through men — again speaking very generally.

If a man is understood to have the capacity to simply decline sex when it does not meet his purposes or values, women are left utterly powerless. The hamster cannot conceive of this state of affairs existing in the world. Therefore any man who is not getting some cannot be choosing chastity: it must be that down deep he really would get sex if he could, but is not sufficiently alpha to do so.

That’s part of why masturbation is such a pernicious source of self harm: each act of masturbation is an inherently immature capitulation to the notion that a man simply must have sexual release. It destroys his self-mastery and increases the power of women to rule over him.

IBB to LFM: The root here that you are missing is that women assume that if a man can get laid, he will. If you aren’t getting laid it is NEVER because you are waiting for marriage. It is INSTEAD because you are a LOSER and no woman would have you because you were born to short/ugly/fat and well, you suck. There you go. Sorry if that is hurtful but it is what it is….

Yep. Alas, that’s it in a nutshell. I realize that it sends waves of nausea through your system to realize that the female contents of the typical church are not only no different from, but often worse than the female contents of the secular world at large (it still sickens me, and I haven’t set foot in a churchian franchise building in over two years), but, to repeat IBB’s use of an all-too-tired cliché, it is what it is.

There is a silver lining to this dark cloud, though, one that should be obvious. Re-read this portion of IBB’s post:

A few years go by, now she is 32. All the alpha cocks she’s f-cked, she hasn’t gotten any marriage offers yet and that 33 year old short/ugly/fat virgin boy in church (with the steady job, the house he bought, the business he started, his education, his non-existant criminal record, and his sexual disease free body) doesn’t look so bad. She wants babies, her clock is ticking. She wants to stop taking birth control. So she figures maybe she’ll take pity on virgin beta dweeb and marry him. After all, its just a starter marriage. She is not going to love him but he does give her what she needs and that is a place to live and someone who can pay off her credit cards and maybe give her a baby or two.

This, my friend, is where your golden opportunity to reject comes in and believe me, you WILL have a chance to exercise it. Often. To the point where you become expert at it — provided, of course, that you can stomach the thought of devoting any of your valuable time and emotional energy to the Sunday morning nightclub scene that is the business of the typical churchian franchise operation.

Look again at the last two sentences of the above extract from IBB’s reply.

After all, its just a starter marriage. She is not going to love him but he does give her what she needs and that is a place to live and someone who can pay off her credit cards and maybe give her a baby or two.

Someone should market a t-shirt, bumper sticker, poster, or lapel badge that reads “I Am NOT a ‘Starter Marriage’ Husband” or something of that sentiment.

Anyway, rub that theme in her face when you reject her. Make sure that she knows that you know all about her carousel-riding past. You might even want to get graphic about it, just to make her that much more uncomfortable and humiliated. Consider rubbing salt into the wound by handing her a local SPCA flyer advertising stray cats available for adoption.

I’m sure by now you’ve figured out that this won’t gain you any friends, of either the male or female sex, but ask yourself this: do I really want the friendship or respect of people who see me as a disposable non-entity, to be taken advantage of for the benefit of the female imperative? Do I have that little self-respect?

In summary, think of these five letters: MGTOW. By joining this growing movement, you’re doing more to effectively reject over-the-hill sluts (and make sure they STAY rejected) than by any other method while ensuring the preservation of your own dignity and peace of mind.

Oh, and where membership in any churchian franchise full of hypergamous sluts is concerned: RUN, FORREST, RUN!

@Jen – you are right about #3. For some women, divorce or widowhood are not an excuse to look for another man. Some women divorce not so they can look for a “better” man, but simply because they no longer have any use for a schlub in the house.

I don’t get all the anti-Earl hate. If you just ban someone and don’t take on board their points, then some day someone will do the same to you. Isn’t this blog a representation of men saying their point of view, because to a certain extent, society banned them from saying un-PC things? Like, if people ignore stuff like social contracting, society will collapse?

I guess that’s why the manosphere is so divided, because there’s not one all-encompassing ideology, unlike feminism, which is funded to accomplish the goals of the elite. Rattlife has the right idea; I should stop trying to be a doctor and just make sure the girls are out. Both women and men in Western nations are unbridled narccisists, Christian and non-Christian alike. Mabye its one of the worst parts of human nature.

The “raw attraction power” of a woman in her twenties does not exist in today’s society. Take a look around: They abuse their bodies, tattoo and pierce them, eat junk food and become overweight, party all night and get very little sleep, sleep around with different men and dress like slobs (no sense of style or taste). The “sexual market value” of the average American woman in her twenties today is abysmal. This is the truth. The only men who pursue them are: 1.) their male peers, since it is natural for people in the same age range to gravitate to each other, and 2.) older men who want a quick pump-and-dump and don’t want to be rebuffed or have to jump through too many hoops to get it (a younger, inexperienced female can be easily duped and the 20-something females are quick to jump into bed).

Now, if they were to clean up and act like ladies, maybe. Although I posit that the peak occurs much earlier, if you want to be technical – around 18, when the pelvis reaches maximum proportions (it is not fully developed until that age). However, it is relevant to note that a woman’s sexual peak occurs in her late 30s.

A man’s sexual peak is at 18 and declines from there. But the “sexual market value” of a man is difficult to measure. You assume it is in the late 30s – but what class of men? Blue collar or white collar types? And have you considered geographical location, like neighborhoods for instance? Late 30s men in one part of a city may be much less of a catch than men of the same age in a better area.

Again, my friend, statistics are the devil’s work. You are measuring something that is so dependent on many other factors, that it simply cannot be measured independently. This is illogical.

May I add? I believe the whole “sexual market value” theory to be based upon the assumption that a woman in her late 20s or older is most likely a feminist, and therefore undesirable (truthfully, they aren’t; I’ll agree there). But not all women in that age bracket are feminists (and many in their twenties are becoming feminists).

Also, you cannot apply logic and mathematics to a subjective theory like “sexual market value.” Take your wife, for instance. I’m sure she’s past her peak age, according to your beliefs. Yet I’m sure you look at her and see not her age, or her “market value.” You see a woman who is beautiful to you, and whom you love. That is what is most important.

You are quick to point out the feminists’ sexism towards men. Yet you seem to turn a blind eye towards the ageism you hold against women. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I am loving your work. I just wanted to comment on the feedback loop given to women about to take that 1% gamble to trade up their man. Not only are they told by the media of how much happier they will be, but also the 99% of failures scattered around them are there because the woman chose that outcome! The divorced woman who is lying to herself is also telling the married woman to take the gamble. A whole lot of women claiming to be happier in divorce when they are objectively not, like lemmings encouraging others to jump in, the water’s nice.

” I believe the whole “sexual market value” theory to be based upon the assumption that a woman in her late 20s or older is most likely a feminist, and therefore undesirable (truthfully, they aren’t; I’ll agree there).”

Incorrect. The SMV plummeting for women as they leave their mid-20s is due to the hardwired response in men to their decreasing physical beauty TO MEN (all that counts here) which indicates lower fertility/potential for pleasure in bed TO MEN, plus a higher “N” count (# cocks in her history), such that she’s likely to be unable to sustain an LTR, never mind a marriage.

” But not all women in that age bracket are feminists”

True. They’re generally what you call MARRIED, with the rest likely to be celibates in humble service roles such as nuns.

“(and many in their twenties are becoming feminists)”

Much more likely, were feminist to the point of undesirability (beyond low-investment P & D) years before they hit driving age.

“Also, you cannot apply logic and mathematics to a subjective theory like “sexual market value.”

Maybe you’re unable to manage doing it, but red-pill men with 3-digit IQs seem to have no trouble accomplishing this.

” Take your wife, for instance. I’m sure she’s past her peak age, according to your beliefs. Yet I’m sure you look at her and see not her age, or her “market value.” You see a woman who is beautiful to you, and whom you love. That is what is most important.”

Uh, no. That’s just called “wife goggles”. Those are based upon her having given him children that she helped raise well, pleasantness, loyalty, supportiveness, and NOT TURNING HIM DOWN (much) over a decade or three. WGs are very fragile, being routinely destroyed by shrewishness, a sex strike, spendthriftiness, and frivorcing him.

“You are quick to point out the feminists’ sexism towards men.”

Yup, that’s much of what this site is about, by design. People interested in the subject read and/or post here. Those who aren’t, don’t.

“Yet you seem to turn a blind eye towards the ageism you hold against women. Two wrongs do not make a right.”

Except that 1) men aren’t wrong to hold advancing age against women we’re assessing as potential sex partners (which men do automatically at all women within sight range). The species would have died out millions of years ago if men (themselves routinely fertile decades after women are cobweb-encrusted deserts “down there”) preferred likely infertile women for sex. After all, our focus Using sexual criteria to judge someone for a potential sexual role makes about as much sense, as oh, an employer judging a potential hire for a job with an engineering role on their ability to do engineering AS THE EMPLOYER DEEMS THEY WANT IT DONE.

2) The mass media (and most of the Internet that’s not explicitly devoted to men’s concerns) is an unwholesome sticky deluge of stupid evil feminist foulness on the subject of men’s relationship with women. The “other side” is already overrepresented by a factor of a billion times. Dalrock’s forum is a small, needed, useful, step of clarity in the opposite direction, one towards truth and justice. It’s feminist sites that you’ll see calls to genocide men by 90% or 100%, brutally enslaving them in the meantime. MGTOW and failure to disclose are the worst you’ll see men on MRA sites advocate towards women romantic partners.

The “two wrongs” you mention do exist. They’re just both committed by feminists and their amoral cynical or stupid and effectively castrated “male” sycophants.

I am put in mind of a sad tale which my friend confided to me last Friday.

His wife has lost one of her earrings and he thinks he can recover the value on the contents insurance. ‘But do you have a receipt for the earrings?’, I enquired, knowing that Insurance Companies are not over-keen to part with money on demand. ‘No’ he replied as he then explained that his wife had purchased the earrings on her credit card (following a fight with him about some matter neither of them can now recall). ‘Then there is the credit card statement in support?’ I ventured. He explained that she had thrown the statement away as she did not wish that he see what she had then done. Now, frankly (and between ourselves) I don’t believe a word she says, and feel certain that the earrings are some form of present for services rendered elsewhere (hence the alleged missing statement).

Having to purchase ones own jewellery – over a thousand dollars worth – when one has married a man who has promised to provide for one for the remainder of your days would be fairly humiliating, although I suppose he has bailed out her credit card debt.